MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  91-80151 


MICROFE.MED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


44 


as  part  of  the 
Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITffiS 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  ~  concerns  the  milking  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


BLAIR,  WALTER 


TITLE: 


LATIN  PRONUNCIATION, 
AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE... 


PLACE: 


NEW  YORK 


DA  TE : 


1873 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARHFT 


Master  Negative  # 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


,(*] 


-^^^V^^^^m 


Blair,  Walter, 

Latin  pronunciation,  an  inquiry  into  the  prope: 
sounds  of  the  Latin  lancuage  during  the  olaooioal 
period,  by  Tfalter  Blair...   Hew  York,  Barnes,1873 

136  p.         19  o"^ 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


•U 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: '}ilnic^_ REDUCTION     RATIO: 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA   (^    IB    IIB  

DATE     FILMED: JL_lllii INITIALS      <ri   >^  C- 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS,  INC  WOODBRrDGE7cT 


ii  > 


c 


Association  for  information  and  Image  IManagement 

1100  Way  ie  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12        3        4 

ll,lilii,lilii]ililliliilillilll,iilil,lllil,ll 


5 

iiiliiiil 


6    7    8    9   10   11 

iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 


m 


12       13       14       15    mm 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


TTT 


TTT 


II   I   II 


TTT 


1 


Inches 


1.0 

IIIM     2.8 

III  5  0 

£    |3.2 

liiuu. 

1.4 

2.5 
22 

LI 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

1.25 

MflNUFfiCTURED   TO  RUM   STHNDflRDS 
BY  APPLIED  IMAGE,    INC. 


aJ^i^^ps 


tl 


^ 


*-i. 


M 


v^ 


>i''^  '<£i^^'ij£¥L  'x4c9^ 


— .1 


THE  mmm  series  oe  stiiiidiird  school-booiis 

COMPRISES    STANDARD    WORKS 

In  every  department  of  instniction  and  of  every  grade.  The  teacher  in  want  of  a  book  for  any  par- 
ticular  purpose  or  class,  will  always  find  the  best  of  its  kind  in  our  catalogue.  No  other  series  even 
claims  to  be  as  complete  as  this.  None  is  so  extensive  or  so  judiciously  selected.  Among  so  many 
volumes  a  high  standard  of  merit  is  maintained,  as  it  is  our  aim  never  to  permit  our  imprint  upon  a 
poor  or  unworthy  book.  It  is  also  our  plau  to  make  books  not  for  a  class  or  sect,  but  for  the  whole 
country— unobjectionable  to  parlies  and  creeds,  while  inculcating  the  great  principles  of  political 
freedom  and  Christianity,  upon  which  all  right-minded  persons  are  agreed.  Hence,  and  from  their 
almost  universal  circulation,  the  name—"  National  Series."  Among  the  principal  volumes  are 
Parker  &  Watson's  Readers-in  two  distinct  series,  each  complete  in  itself.  Uie 
National  Jteaders,  of  full  grade,  in  large,  elegant  volumes,  adequate  for  every  want  of 
the  most  thorough  and  high  —.       —     -  -  _ 


8TT.I5 


BST 


(S,0lnntbici  ©iJiUge 
in  tijc  ffiitu  of  %Uttt  Uork. 

library. 


volumes,  for  Common  Scho« 
series.    Spellers  complet 

Davies'  ZXEathemati 

Ac. — Camplete  ia  every  br 
called  for,  and  the  sale  inc 
the  places  of  those  that  are 

Barnes'  Brief  Histc 

— For  one  term  of  study. 
Interesting  by  cdarming  Ian, 
the  most  important  events. 

ZVEonteith's  Geog:rai 

— These  works  are  eminent  I.' 
a  number  of  volumes  not  ne 

Steele's  Natural  Sc 
Chemistry  f  A  sir  one 

they  make  science  available 

Clark's  Diag-ramma: 

novel  analysis.     Gradually; 

Wonnan's  BXodern 

Ac— Upon  a  new  plan  for  cc 
new  ones. 

Searing's  Classics— i 

and  others,  with  Notes,  Lexii 
"r>  ARE  MENTION  only  can 

English  Zanguage—Cu 

Composition,  Logic,  Critici 
finers,  Dictionaries,  Writing 
KXD'a  Series  of  Speakers— Z. 

JTiSfOr?/. —MONTEITH'3   Chill 

England— RicoRDs  Rome- 
Pen  and  l*e nci I.— Bkers 

—Smith  &  Mautin's  Bookl 
Drawing. 

Natural  Science Norto 

Chemistry— McIntyre's  As „^    _ „    ...^„,„., 

Chambers'  Zoology— Peck's  Mechanics— Bartletts  College  Philosophy. 
Important  Works  also  are  Pujol's  French  Class  Book-DwicnT's  Mythology-HcNTixo- 

TOJf's  Fine  .\rts— Champli.vs  Political  Economy— Mansfield's  Government  Manual— Aldens 

Ethics— Brooks'  Manual  of  Devotiou— Tracy's  School  Record,  Ac. 

The  Teacher's  IJbrartj  ron^Ms  of  over  20  vohm-s  of  strictly  professional  literature,  asPAGK-g 
Theory  and  Practice— Holbrook's  Normal  Methods— No UTUEXD's  Teacher's  Assistant,  Ac. 

A  DESCRIPTIYE  CATALOGUE  of  all  these  and  many  more  may  be  obtained  by  enclosing  a 

stamp  to  the  Publishers, 

A.  2.  BARNES  &  COMPAKY, 

National  Educational  Publishers, 
111   &  113  WILLIAM  STREET,  NEW  YO 


GIVEN    BY 


Dt-  HeriTU 


ID 


Tisle'r 


'"&j — »t  v»UA»  a    xiuiaij^-> 


II 

I 


r 


m  TOMAS  SEEKS  IH  MOIEEll  IAS8DAGE. 


A  Complete  Course  in  German. 

By  JAMES  H.  WORMAN,  A.M. 

EMBRACINa 

g-ermla.:n'  reader, 

G^ERMAJSr    COI>Y-BOOKS.  GER]Mi^lSr    ECHO. 

IN  PREPAKA'nON, 

HISTORY  oii^  germ:ai>3-  x^itera.ttjre, 

GERMAI^r    AI^D    E1>^&LISI£    LEXICOJ^. 

T    TTTV  aT:nMAX  GltAMMAltS  of  Wonnan  are  widely  preferred  on  ac- 

•  f^rthPirH^lrexDlicit  method  (on  the  conversation  plan),  introducing  a  Bystem 

Sfall^g?^  ^d  comp^^^^^^    wilSthr  learner.'  own  langtla.^e  and  others  commonly 

^%hetrt8  of  Bpeakinff,  of  understanding  the  spoken  language,  and  of  correct  pronun- 

^%r  new  "^^^^^^^"^^^"^^^  of  irregular  ^.rh«  are  .of  great  -lue  to  the 
pupil  S  use  of  heavy  type  to  indicate  etymological  changes,  is  new.  The  \  ocabu- 
kry  id  »ynonymical—ail»o  a  new  leature. 

TT    Trn»ir4V'«f    arJlMAX  JiEAJyEJl    contains   progreepive    Pelectiona 

tranrtlatiou  into  the  German. 

TTT  irnmtr4WfS  GT:RMAX  r.cno  (Deutsckes EcTio)  is  entirely  a  new 
thfn^^n  ?h^?ounfr?^  It  prey's  familiar  colloquial  exercises  without  translation, 
and  wiU  teach  fluent  conversation  in  a  few  months  of  diligent  study. 

No  other  meSwill  ever  make  the  student  "I'S  "Ve^J'i^^SXougUnd 
he  thinks  in.  as  well  as  speaks  it.  For  the  time  be  ng  he  is  ^Jf^:^^^^^^£^  J-ee 
through.    The  laborious  process  of  translatmg  his  thoughts  no  longer  imyeucB  ixi.c 

unembarrassed  utterance. 


p  ■  ♦  >> 


WORIAN'S  COMPLETE  FRENCH  COURSE 

IS  INAUGURATED  BY 

L'EOia:0     IDE     I>-A.Il.IS, 

Or   "French  Echo;"  on  a  plan  identical  with  the  German  Echo  described  above, 
ur,     X  "'"^"^j^.g  ^.jj  ^g  followed  in  due  course  by  the  other  volumes  of 

THE  ere:n^ch:  series, 

VIZ.  * 

A  COMPLETE  GTiAMMAR,  \A    E IS  E X C H    ^^^f^^^' 

AX  ELEMENTARY  O  RAMMA  R,\  A    FRENCH    LEXICON 
A  HISTORY  OF  FRENCH  LITERATURE 


•  •  ♦  •• 


XJlVRIVAX^Er>. 


WORMAN'S   WORKS 

are  simply 


1' 


—  —  I 


.IJHBfc,"^* 


0°0      o?0       ° 
O  0  0° 

°0°       »o« 


0        o     "o    o°    "        o    ■ 


LATIN  PRONUNCIITION. 


)      0  a  o     o        0     0        0     0 

'       O     0     0   3  5,5  T    1 


AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE 


PROPER  SOUNDS  OF  THE  LATIN  LANGUAGE 


DURING 


THE  CLASSICAL  PEEIOD. 


BY 


WALTEK    BLAIK,    A.M., 

PROFESSOR  OP  LATIN  IN  HAMPDEN  SIDNEY  COLLEGE,  VIBGINIA. 


A.   S.   BARNES    &    COMPANY, 

NEW  YORK  AND  CHICAGO. 

1873. 


•  •  • 


•  •  I 
•  I 

•  •  I 


>•  •.   .«  « 


•     «  • 
« « «  « 


t  * 

t  e 

c  « 

*    »      e  «  c  t  • 


•  t 


(  t  c  c 

•  « 

<  e  • 

I  t 

etc  etc 


t  -  e 
c  c 
t        ( 


»  c  > 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1870,  by 

WALTER    BLAIR, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  treatise  was  originally  prepared  by 
appointment  of  the  Educational  Association  of  the  State 
of  Virginia.  Having  been  favorably  received  by  that 
body,  it  is  now  respectfully  offered  to  a  larger  circle  of 
teachers  and  scholars,  in  the  hope  that  thereby  some 
contribution  may  be  made  towards  a  just  settlement  of 
the  still  very  uncertain  practice  of  our  schools  in  the 
matter  of  Latin  Pronunciation. 


to 


CM 


■i>Ci  ^ « J 


/^' 


«>"0      0 

■>  0 


)       0     0     9     O        O    o     o 

•  o '  >    a  o 

»  000     , 

0  '      0  0^'^ 
"    •»•   "o"      OO 


INTRODUCTION. 


Quid  enim  tatn  necessa7-iu7n  quatn  recta  locutio, — QuiNT. 


MANY  languages  have  been  richer  than  the  Ijatin 
in  variety  of  sounds;  but  no  people  were  ever 
more  attentive  at  once  to  discrimination  and  refinement 
in  their  utterance  than  the  Komans.  Their  poets  and 
orators  were  held  to  a  strict  account  in  this  respect ;  and 
the  sedulous  endeavor  of  these  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  a 
sensitive  ear  is  apparent  in  their  written  performances. 

In  the  way  of  direct  testimony,  moreover,  the  writers 
on  the  fine  art  of  elocution  furnish  abundant  evidence 
of  the  exacting  judgment  of  a  Roman  auditory.  They 
make  it  certain  that  during  the  most  cultivated  period 
of  the  Latin  literature,  all  who  pretended  to  any  refine- 
ment of  letters,  and  even  the  general  crowd,  which  was 
subject  to  the  polishing  influences  of  the  metropolis,  pos- 
sessed and  cherished  the  most  delicate  sense  of  propriety 
in  the  rendering  of  the  sounds  of  their  language.* 

When,  therefore,  it  is  recollected  further,  that  the 
compositions  which  have  come  down  to  us  from  that 
distant  period  were  never  designed  to  be  absorbed  through 
the  eye,  in  silence,  from  a  written  page,  but  were  dis- 

*  Cic.  Orat ,  c,  44.  .  .  .  .  "  aures ;  quarum  est  iudicium  superbia- 
simum."    Cf.  c.  48. 


•  •      • 

•  •  .  • 

•         •    • 

•  •  • 

•  •  • 


6  c     IXTRODUCTIOJ^. 

••1  *•••-•    •     •-  •    *       ' 

••••.*•.*: :  :    «•..*.■ 

•..tihcfely  and  c6nsciously  planned  for  the  interpretation  of 

.•t^ke:  totigije,^ve  must  feel  how  hopeless  is  the  effort  to 
•/.perietrate"  to  any  true  and  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
:  ..f-^tii?  jlanguagc,  not  only  in  its  beauties  but  even  in  its 
••  essential  nature  and  powers,  until  we  shall  render  the 
signs  before  us  back  again  into  the  sounds  which  they 
were  designed  to  represent.* 

This  necessity  is  patent  with  regard  to  poetry,  the 
whole  texture  of  which  is  persistently  controlled  by  the 
exigencies  of  recitation :  but  it  is  also  true  (though  a 
somewhat  closer  observation  is  necessary  to  reveal  the 
fact),  that  many  an  appearance,  both  regular  and  occa- 
sional, in  the  structure  of  the  plainest  prose  is  directly 
traceable  to  the  influence  of  sound. 

But  notwithstanding  the  astonishing  neglect  of  our 
ancestors,  for  generations,  of  the  proper  sounds  of  the 
Latin  language ;   perhaps  no  thoughtful  student  of  the 
present  day  needs  any  longer  to  be  convinced  of  the  im- 
portance of  their  revival.    And  should  there  be  any  to 
whom  it  is  still  necessary  to  justify  the  demand  made 
for  an  inquiry  into  the  Latin  Pronunciation;   if  we  can 
satisfy  them  at  all,  we  cannot  hope  to  do  so  in  a  better 
way  than  by  inviting  them  to  enter  with  us  upon  the 
inquiry  itself.    Therefore,  to  this  we  address  ourselves 
at  once,  assuming  for  our  present  duty  the  endeavor  to 
satisfy  as  far  as  we  can,  rather  than  to  justify  the  ques- 
tion which  has  been  assigned  us.    That  question  is,  to 
ascertain  the  "correct  Accentuation,  Quantitv,  and  Pro- 
nunciation of  the  Latin  Language."    These  are   three 

*  Hie  enim  est  usus  litterarum,  ut  custodiant  wees  et  velut  deposi- 
tum  reddant  legentibus,  itaque  id  exprimere  debent  quod  dictuH 
sximns.    Quint,  j,  7,  §  31  ^ 


INTRODUCTION. 


distinct  modifications  of  the  voice  in  speech,  closely  asso- 
ciated it  is  true  in  practice,  so  as  to  exert  an  important 
influence  upon  each  other,  yet  quite  separate  in  their 
nature  and  causes.  The  pitch,  the  stress,  the  time,  or 
Accent  and  Quantity,  are  accidents  of  the  vocal  tone, 
while  Pronunciation,  as  commonly  understood,  has  to 
do  with  the  essential  quality  and  stamp  of  the  uttered 
sound.  In  a  particular  examination  of  these  three,  then, 
the  natural  order  to  be  observed  will  be  the  reverse  of 
that  just  stated,  and  it  is  the  Pronunciation  which  must 
engage  us  first.* 

And  here  we  conceive  our  task  to  be  purely  a  practical 
one,  that  is,  to  indicate,  as  far  as  we  may  be  able,  what 
were  the  true  and  actual  sounds  of  the  Latin,  furnishino" 
if  possible,  reasonable  evidence  of  their  authority.  Of 
the  evidence  now  available  to  us,  it  is  to  be  remarked 
in  the  outset,  that  all  of  it  is  probable  in  its  nature,  so 
that  its  principal  force  must  arise  from  concurrence  and 
accumulation.  Such  arguments,  therefore,  as  shall  be 
sufficient  to  establish  the  convictions  which  we  seek 
must  of  necessity  be  various,  while  a  certain  extent  of 
detail  also  cannot  be  avoided. 

Some  seem  to  have  supposed  it  possible  to  arrive 
directly  at  the  desired  results  by  ar  simple  application 
of  the  general  principles  of  phonetics. 

These  have  found  it  easy  to  construct  a  neatly  arranged 
dogmatic  system /or  Latin  sounds;  but  in  offering  us  a 
plan  already  suspicious  from  its  very  perfections,  they 
omit  to  demonstrate  the  actual  connection  between  their 
theory  and  the  facts.    The  Latin  pronunciation  was  cer- 

*  The  present  inquiry  will  extend  no  further. 


m- 


'■*      ! 


8 


introductio:n^. 


INTRODUCTION. 


9 


III 


tainly  simpler  and  more  regular  than  that  of  our  own 
language ;  but  a  perfect  simplicity  and  regularity  will  be 
far  from  appearing  to  the  candid  student :   nor  will  he 
be  able  to  content  himself,  for  example,  with  the  dogma 
that  the  "pronunciation  of  the  diphthongs  in  common 
use  IS  to  be  determined,  ai  o?ice  and  infallihly,  by  the 
well  established  sounds  of  the  component  elements"* 
Such  consistency  and  symmetry  is,  no  doubt,  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  hopeless  variety  and  accident  to  which  our 
practice  has  abandoned  the  Latin  which  we  read  •  but 
reformers  must  be  careful,  or  reaction  may  overreach 
itself. 

The  only  fair  and  reasonable  way  of  obtaining  a  satis- 
factory knowledge  of  the  sounds  which,  in  the  classical 
age,  were  actually  in  use  among  the  Eomans,  is  by  com- 
panng  together  such  statements  of  the  ancients,  and  such 
other  particular  facts,  bearing  upon  the  matter,  as  are 
withm  our  reach.    As  has  been  already  intimated,  we 
shall  find  that  the  best  of  this  evidence  is  only  probable. 
The  ancients  had  but  an  imperfect  acquaintance  with  the 
physiology  of  the  vocal  organs  and  of  the  natural  causes 
which  determine  the  quality  of  sound;  and  hence  it  was 
out  of  their  power  to  describe  the   elements   of  their 
speech  m  any  more  certainly  unmistakeable  way  than  by 
appealing  to  the  familiar  sensation  of  the  ear  in  hearing 
it.    Therefore  in  all  that  the  old  Eomans  have  to  say 
concerning  the  sounds  of  their  tongue,  there  is  nothing 
which  furnishes  in  itself  an  adequate  account  for  foreign 
ears  or  remote  posterity.! 

*  J.  F.  Richardson,  Roman  Orthoepy  (N.  Y.,  1859),  p.  29. 

t  Cic.  Orat.,  c.  49 «rerum,  verbonimque  judicium,  pruden- 


Cicero  discourses  profusely  on  the  proprieties  of  enun- 
ciation, and  some  of  his  remarks  will  furnish  a  useful 
preliminary  to  the  more  particular  inquiry  which  we  have 
to  undertake.  Especially  in  De  Orat,  III,  cc.  xi-xiii,  and 
Orat.,  cc.  45-48,  as  well  as  in  many  passages  of  "  Brutus,^^ 
we  have  a  great  number  of  general  precepts  for  the  man- 
agement of  the  tongue,  the  breath,  and  the  tone. — The 
voice  must  be  sustained  and  uniform  {permanens) ;  the 
tone  must  be  natural  and  unaffected  {recta,  simplex) ; 
syllables  must  be  distinctly  heard,  but  not  inflated  nor 
expanded ;  letters  must  not  be  slurred,  nor  offensively 
thrust  into  prominence ;  the  drawl  (latitudo  verhorum, 
dilatare  syllabas),  and  harsh  and  strident,  coarse,  thick, 
and  deep  sounds  are  condemned  as  "  rustic  "  and  inelegant ; 
while  a  full-rounded,  sonorous  tone,  sweet  without  weak- 
ness, gentle  without  effeminacy  [vox  {plena),  canora  ;  and 
suavis,  lenis  opposed  to  mollis],  concise  but  clear,  imparts 
the  indescribable  but  indispensable  "  ring  "  and  "  color  " 
of  "urbanity."    {BruL  46,  §§  171,  172.) 

These  precepts  already  put  some  limit  to  an  indefinite 
range  of  possibility  for  the  Latin  sounds.  But  from 
Cicero  and  other  philosophical  writers  on  the  use  of 
language,  we  cannot  obtain  the  special  and  minute  in- 
struction which  we  need.  The  nature  and  power  of  the 
several  "  elements  "  to  Avhicli  the  single  letters  correspond 
was  not  discussed  by  those  writers,  as  being  a  subject 
which,  in  a  scientific  aspect,  was  too  particular  and  too 
obscure  ("  subtilior  cognitio  ac  ratio  literarum  "),*  but  in 


tiae  est :  wcum  autem  et  numerorum,  aures  sunt  judices 
illis  ratio  invenit,  in  his  sensus  artem." 
*  Cic.    Compare  also  Quint.  I,  4,  §  6. 


in 


?'- 


#\\^#-"^^ 


10 


IXTROD  LCTIOA'. 


its  popular  aspect,  too  familiar  for  the  more  elevated  and 
more  general  aims  of  philosophical  disquisition.  (See 
Oic.  d.  Or.  Ill,  c.  13.) 

Yet  there  were  some,  and  they  too  the  most  learned  of 
their  age,  who  even  as  early  as  the  time  of  Cicero,  made 
long  and  careful  studies  of  the  elements  of  pronunciation 
Marcus  Ter.  Varro  (b.c.  64),  -  doctissinms  Romanorumr 
IS,  for  us,  the  first,  and  Priscianus  Csesariensis  (instructor 
at  the  court  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  510),  among  the  last 
of  a  long  series  of  grammarians,  to  whose  instructions  we 
must  now  turn,  in  order  to  gather,  by  inference,  and  not 
without  great  care  and  pains,  the   information  which 
might  have  been  easily  and  more  certainly  had  by  spend- 
ing an  hour  with  the  Roman  boys  in  their  elementary 
school.    It  IS  impossible  to  undertake  here  an  estimate 
of  the  responsibility  of  the  different  Latin  Grammarians 
severally.    An  effort  shall  be  made,  as  far  as  may  be,  to 
keep  in  mind  a  reference  to  this  in  the  use  which  is  to 
be  made  of  their  remarks  in  the  following  pages.     Those 
of  a  later  time  often  copy  their  predecessors  freely,  while 
on  the  other  hand,  occasionally  discrepancies  occur 

But  it  must  be  remembered  in  the  general,  that  even 
the  later  writers  of  this  class  represent  an  uninterrupted 
hterary  tradition,  which  remained  to  a  great  extent,  if 
not  entirely,  unimpaired  among  scholars  long  after  the 
popular  speech  of  the  Romans  had  entered  upon  its  rapid 
course  of  corruption.* 

The    statements    of   grammarians,   however,   are   not 

*  The  popular  speech  was  full  of  corruptions  at  all  times     Taci- 
tus allusion  (Dial.  d.  Orat.  32)  to  the  qnotidiam  sermonis  foeda  ac 

aCtlt  nf';  Ti!  "T"^'  "''^'  irrespective  of  the  sounds,  while 
applying  also  to  the  choice  and  other  management  of  words 


INTRODUCTION. 


11 


enough  to  satisfy  us :  since  they  presuppose  a  practical 
knowledge  of  the  very  sounds  which  they  describe. 
When,  for  example,  Priscian  says :  "  Vocales  ....  per  se 
prolatcB  nomen  sintm  ostendunt /'  that  is  a  valuable 
statement,  and  carries  us  a  great  way  towards  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  sounds  of  the  vowels:  but  while  it 
serves  to  remove  many  possible  doubts,  it  nevertheless 
stops  short  of  the  last  point ;  and  we  learn  from  it,  after 
all,  only  that  the  name  of  the  vowel  I  {e.  g.)  contains  the 
sound  of  I.  The  accounts  of  grammarians,  therefore, 
must  be  brought  into  comparison  with  separate  lines  of 
probable  argument.    Among  these — 

1.  The  tradition  of  scholars  is  entitled  to  a  place ;  and 
the  inherited,  if  even  perverted,  sounds  of  the  modern 
Romance  languages  may  be  usefully  compared,  with  a 
cautious  regard  to  their  history. 

2.  The  Greek  rendering  of  Latin  sounds  is  instructive 
so  soon  as  it  is  made  to  appear  (as  may  be  and  has  been 
done),  that  the  Greeks  endeavored  to  indicate  the  Latin 
sounds,  Avhich  they  heard  in  Roman  mouths,  as  faithfully 
as  their  alphabet  would  permit.* 

3.  The  third  source  of  concomitant  evidence  is  the 
face  of  the  language  itself,  as  seen  in  its  records  which 
have  been  preserved  to  us.  Since  the  value  of  this  evi- 
dence depends  upon  the  assumption  that  it  was  the 
practice  of  Latin  orthography  to  accommodate  itself 
faithfully  to  the  sound,  and  to  change  with  its  changes, 
it  is  of  importance  to  show  that  such  an  assumption  is 


*  Certain  deviations  from  the  uniformity  of  this  practice  have 
been  happily  elucidated  by  Strehlke  in  Kuhn's  Zeitsch.  f.  Vergl. 
Sprachf.,  Vol.  I,  p.  311  and  after. 


i 


ir 


[2 


l:5fTRODUCTI02f 


III 


tins  and  bes.des  the  fact  that  the  ancient  g.-ammaLs 
generally  proceed  upon  that  assumption,  we  are  not  at  a 
los  for  passages  in  the  Latin  authors,  which  both  directly 
and  implicitly  declare,  that  correspondence  of  form  with 
sound  was  aimed  at,  and  understood  in  practice  also  to 
be  (certainly  in  the  main)  tho  fact.* 
Quintilian  says  directly  (I,  7, 11) :  "  Verum  orthograpMa 

8how  that  their  author  said  Burrus  instead  of  Pyrrhns 

(x\.  A.,  IX,  14,  §§  21-23),  in  order  to  prove  that  Lucilius 
trZot;!''"^'  (^^'---O/^.^.  etc.,  instead  of^l 

tat:in!tt  f  ^''>"'  '™"  ''^'  ^'^^^"''^  e.„W.^.,  con- 
taining the  form  in  question.  And  so,  everywhere  aLon^ 
the  grammarians.  ^    ueie  among 

But  this  very  principle,  being  continued  into  later 
mes,  has  served  to  corrupt  the  orthography  of  th    liss 

d   hi:  th";/''^^  1 ''''-''  *— i/tsL  Of  eail; 

th   fi    y.r'  ""*r'  '^"'^  --  --e  ancient  than 
tne  touith.     For  a  period  earlier  than  that,  therefore  thP 
only  unquestionable  authority  for  Latin     rth^hy" 
to  be  fotind  in  the  monumental  records.    The  la^^'^Sn 
able  collections  which  have  been  made  of  thos     .  sc  L 

enaence  for  the  Latm  sounds.    To  the  study  of  them  is 

*  So  that  tlie  existence  of  two  forms,  «*  *i, 
dence  also  of  two  soynds  •  e  T"  (ZT  ;        '  ''°''  ^"^^  ''  ''^^- 
tnm :  mt  ntroquc  utarcr    c/c^Orat    ^7         "^  '''•'   ^'''>  '"^"^^^^ 


INTRO  DUCTIOlir. 


13 


due  the  chief  merit  of  Prof.  W.  Corssen's  masterly  work 
on  Latin  Pronunciation.  Perhaps  we  should  not  here 
regret  the  want  of  access  to  original  documents,  since  the 
results  of  Corssen's  extended  labors  lie  before  us ;  and 
these  we  shall  not  hesitate  in  using,  so  far  as  may  suit 
the  purposes  of  this  more  humble  and  restricted  inquiry. 

It  may  be  allowed  us  to  mention  as  other  modern 
works,  from  which  we  have  derived  instruction  and  taken 
facts :  Lachmann's  Commentary  on  Lucretius ;  various 
essays  in  Kuhn's  Zeitschrift  fiir  Vergleichende  Sprach- 
forsclmng ;  and  Seyffert's  Latin  Grammar  (Branden- 
burg, 1798),  from  which  particularly  have  been  drawn 
many  extracts  from  the  Latin  Grammarians.  Those  who 
are  acquainted  with  the  more  or  less  well  known  names 
of  scholars  who  have  written  specially  on  the  subject 
assigned  us,  will  miss  the  most  of  them  from  this  short 
list.  Of  the  works  of  some,  particularly  of  Schneider,  we 
have  ourselves  deeply  felt  the  need 

Having  defined  the  purpose  before  us  to  be  a  limited 
and  practical  one,  we  shall  endeavor  to  direct  our  inves- 
tigation solely  towards  results  which  are  to  be  of  ser- 
vice in  the  school,  and  will  inquire,  therefore,  only  into 
the  sounds  actually  in  use  among  the  Eomans  in  the 
period  commonly  known  as  the  classical  age.  No  allusion 
shall  be  made  to  the  popular  or  provincial  variations, 
except  w^hen  these  can  be  made  use  of  to  illustrate  the 
main  object  of  our  search.  For  the  same  reason,  and  to 
the  same  extent,  it  will  be  proper  to  exclude  all  parti- 
cular account  of  the  early  and  late  history  of  the  Latin 
sounds. 

And  yet,  with  all  restrictions,  our  undertaking  remains 
a  considerable  one.    Without  a  particle  of  positive  evi- 


I; 


14 


INTRODUCTION. 


IM 


dence,  our  only  resource  is  in  the  multiplication  of  prob- 
able proofs;  and  so  also  we  cannot  escape  the  risk  of 
prolixity,  since  there  is  no  choice  between  dogmatism 
with  brevity  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  spreading  out  of 
details  on  the  other,  if  even  a  feeble  hope  be  indulged  of 
producing,  in  the  minds  of  any,  a  reasonable  conviction. 
This  conviction  we  believe  to  be  the  prominent  demand 
of  the  present  time  with  respect  to  the  important  ques- 
tion in  our  hands  :  for  while  few  are  found  disposed  to 
undertake  a  hopeless  defence  of  that  utter  abandonment 
into  which  the  pronunciation   of  the  Latin  has  fallen 
among  us,  yet  before  adopting  another  plan  all  think 
(and  justly  think)  themselves  entitled  to  exact  a  show  of 
Its  authority.    To  give  up  even  a  corrupt  and  barbarous 
manner  of  pronunciation,  requires  a  sacrifice  of  habit 
which  will  not  be  generally  conceded  without  a  sufficient 
reason. 

Firmly  believing  that  the  true  Latin  sounds  may  in 
the  main  be  known,  and  may  be  sufficiently  defended 
but  not  without  a  due  sense  of  the  difficulty  of  our 
performing  the  task  in  a  satisfactoiy  and  suitable  man- 
ner, we  proceed  to  the  details  of  our  inquiry. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF   LATIN. 


The  fundamental  units  of  speech  {elenienta)  were 
represented  in  the  classical  period  of  the  Latin  language 
by  the  following  signs  (Utter ce) : 

A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G,  H,  I,  (K),  L,  M,  N,  0,  P, 
Q,  K,  S,  T,  V,  X,  [Y,  Z]. 

The  whole  group  is  called  by  Tacitus  literatura,  but 
by  later  authors  often  compendium,  and  commonly  by  the 
Greek  name  Alphabet um.  Severally  their  names  were 
(Vid.  Prise.  P.  p.  540) : 

A,  Be,  Ce,  De,  E,  cF,  Ge,  Ha,  I,  Ka,  eL,  eM, 
cN,  0,  Pe,  Qu,  eR,  eS,  Te,  V  (and  Vau),  iX, 
(Ypsilon,  Zeta). 

It  will  be  convenient,  in  a  particular  examination,  to 
consider  the  vowels  first. 


A.. 

A  stream  of  air  vibrating  from  the  vocal  chords,  and 
forcing  its  own  way  through  the  buccal  tube,  which  is 
left  unmodified  by  any  activity  of  the  organs  situated 
along  its  course,  will  produce  inarticulate  sound  only. 


IG 


I'KONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


II 


II 


But  the  same  Stream,  accompanied  by  the  easiest,  and 
(If  ^ve  begin  with  the  root  of  the  tongue)  the  first  modi- 
flcation  of  the  size  and  shape  of  the  buccal  tube,  gives 
nsc  to  a  suTiplc  vocal  sound,  which  for  many  reasons 
Jiistoncal  as  well  as  natural,  deserves  to  hold  the  place 
al«^ys  assigned  it  at  the  head  of  the  Latin  alphabet, 
ihis  IS  the  vowel  A,  made  by  a  conformation  of  the 
buccal  tube  through  the  action  of  the  root  of  the  tongue 
and  the  soft  palate.*    The  whole  extent  of  the  tongue 
m  advance  of  the  root,  remains  in  repose  (suspensa  lin- 
gua),  as  do  all  the  muscles  of  the  jaws  and  lips,  which 
are  separated  by  allowing  the  lower  jaw  to  fall  to  the 
extent  to  which  its  weight  will  carry  it  {ridu  pcdulo). 

The  resulting  sound  is  that  of  a  in  English  Mr,  or 
French  barbarc.^  That  this  was  the  sound,  and  the  only 
sound  of  the  Latin  A,  is  to  be  argued  from  the  combined 
toree  of  a  variety  of  considerations,  as  : 

1.  Every  form  of  tradition  maintains  this  sound,  and 
no  authority  supports  another. 

2.  The  history  of  internal  changes  of  Latin  words,, 
the  modifications  and  combinations  to  which  this  vowel 
has  been  subject,  furnish  evidence  in  the  same  sense 

3.  A  comparison  with  other  languages-whether  his- 
torically or  actually  instituted-favors  ihe  same.  (Com- 
pare, for  example,  Latin  a  with  Greek  a  in  equivalent 
forms.) 

Mr.M'r  f^f  r''"""*  ""^  '^''  P^siology  of  the  vocal  organs,  see 
Max  Muller  s  Lectures  on  Science  of  Language,  Second  Series 

tint  ^'lv"T7  *^'l'  the  English  and  French  a  have  a  difference  of 
tint,  ^^e  believe  that  the  Latin  was  more  strictly  the  same  with 
«ie  French  . ;  but  it  may  be  for  practical  purposes  also  sufficiently 
well  represented  by  a  in  English  "  barr  n^ieniiy 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


17 


4.  The  testimony  of  Latin  writers,  before  their  spoken 
language  had  lost  its  authority,  points  in  the  same 
direction. 

But  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  deyelop  all  this  evi- 
dence. The  sound  of  Latin  A  is  so  little  disputed,  that 
Ave  may  safely  assume  it  and  pass  on  at  once  to  a  par- 
ticular remark — the  only  one  necessary  to  be  added. 
This  is,  that  the  short  sound  of  A  differs  not  at  all  in 
kind,  but  only  in  quantity,  from  the  long  sound.  While, 
therefore,  long  A  has  the  sound  of  a  in  English  barter, 
the  short  sound  of  Latin  A  is  not  heard  in  English  batter. 
The  English  rarely  uses  the  short  Latin  a  in  its  purity. 
It  is  sometimes  accidentally  given  in  unaccentuated  places 
in  English  words,  in  which  it  is  common,  however,  to 
hear  either  an  uncertain  sound  or  another  sound  of  Eng- 
lish a,  as  in  the  first  syllables  of  papa,  dliah,  marauder. 
In  German,  French,  and  Italian  the  short  sound  of  Latin 
a  is  regularly  heard.    We  have  it  in  French  battre. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  English  short  a  of  batter  differs 
not  only  in  quantity  but  also  in  quality  from  the  long  a  of 
barter.  But  of  such  a  difference  in  quality  between  the 
long  and  the  short  A  of  the  Latin,  we  can  infer  nothing 
indirectly,  and  we  hear  nothing  directly.  All  accounts 
speak  only  of  one  sound.* 


*  For  the  ten  varieties,  spoken  of  by  Priscian  (ap.  P.  p.  539),  do 
not  belong  to  the  nature  of  the  sound,  but  are  due  to  the  various 
combinations  of  accent  and  quantity,  and  even  aspiration,  since  he 
enumerates  ha  among  them.  Upon  consulting  the  passage,  rather 
long  for  insertion  liere,  it  will  be  plain,  that  if  we  remove  by 
elimination  all  the  elements  of  the  author's  mischievous  confusion, 
we  shall  have  left  only  the  one  sound  of  A.  Much  of  the  obscurity 
and  apparent  contradiction  found  in  the  ancient  Grammarians  (and 
there  is  no  little  of  it),  is  simply  due  to  a  want  of  accurate  and  close 


I 


18 


PRONUi^CIATIOIs^     OF    LATIl^. 


Marius  Vldormm  (P.  p.  2453) :  "A  litera,  rictu  patulo, 
suspensa  neque  impressa  dentibus  lingua,  enuntiatur." 

Priscian  (P.  p.  540):   "Vocales per  se  prolate 

nomen  suuni  ostendunt/' 

:N"ay,  the  identity  of  sound  is  certainly  contemplated  by 
Lucilius  as  quoted  by  Ter.  Scaurus  (P.  p.  2255,  ap.  Cors- 
sen  I,  p.  140)  : 

" '  A '  primum  longa,  brevis  syllaba,  nos  tamen  unum 
Hoc  faciemus,  et  uno  eodemqiie  ut  dicimus  pacto,  Scri- 
bemus:  ^pAcem,  pUcide,  JAnum,  Aridum,  Acetum/ 
'  "Apsg,  "Apeg  '  Graeci  ut  faciunt/' 

Hence, 

long  A  is  equal  to  a  in  Eng.  barter, 
short  A  "      "      "   a  "    Fr.     battre. 


E. 

Latij^  E  is  in  form  the  Greek  epsilon.  A  correspond- 
ence in  sound,  also,  to  the  sound  of  that  letter  in  the 
Greek,  is  to  be  inferred  from 

Latin,  Secundus, 
Geta, 
Tubero, 


a 


(( 


a 


a 


Servilius, 

Porsenna  (and  Por- 
sena). 


Greek,  2e«oi;vdof, 
"       Tov(iipG)v, 


cc 


ti 


lepoviXiog, 

Uopatvvag  (and  Uop- 
orjvag), 


discnmmation  between  permanent  qualities  and  accidental  condi- 
tions of  sound-distinctions  which  have  become  familiar  and  neces- 
sary  to  the  more  rigorous  method  of  modern  times 


f' 


PRONU]^CIATION     OF     LATIN. 


19 


and,  assuming  rj  =  e, 


Latin,  Suetonius, 
"      Aurunculeius, 
«      Zeno, 
"      zelotypia  (Pliny), 


Greek,  ^evriTovLog, 
"       AvpovvKovXTjlog^ 
"       Zrjvu)v, 
"      ^TjXoTVTTla,  etc.,  etc. 


The  practice  of  scholars  generally  makes  a  true  dif- 
ference in  the  timbre  *  or  essential  tone  of  e  and  e ;  so 
that  the  e  of  e(/i  is  as  clearly  separated  from  the  e  of  ego 
as  are  the  vowel  sounds  heard  in  English  bake  and  beck — 
and  that  quite  irrespective  of  the  quantity.  Such  a 
practice  must  be  regarded  as  inconsistent  with  the  words 
of  Priscian  quoted  above  (p.  18),  the  import  of  which  is, 
that  each  vowel  had  but  one  proper  sound.  The  dif- 
ference, however,  between  a  short  rendering  of  a  in  bake 
and  S  in  beck,  although  real,  is  small,  and  to  insist  upon 
a  difficult  reform  in  so  minute  a  particular  may  well  be 
thought  by  some  an  instance  of  misdirected  diligence 
(molestissima  diligentiae  perversitas,  Quint.  I,  6,  17). 
For  us  who  have  no  longer  an  appeal  to  the  criterion  of 
the  ear,  it  is  impossible  to  decide  positively  for  the 
authority  of  either  of  these  two  sounds  as  compared  with 
the  other,  yet  probability  seems  to  favor  the  belief  that 
it  was  the  sound  now  heard  in  egi,  which  contained  the 
true  stamp  of  the  vowel  e. 

This  sound  seems  best  adapted  to  the  deviations  in  the 
rendering  of  E  among  the  Komans,  which  must  now  be 
considered.    The  first  of  these  is  indicated  by  the  inter- 

"*  What  by  the  French  is  called  the  timbre  of  a  vocal  tone,  and 
by  Prof.  Tyndal  (in  imitation  of  the  German)  the  dang-tint,  is  vari- 
able only  with  the  shape  of  the  vocal  tube.  A  change  of  timbre^ 
therefore,  is  both  physiologically  and  actually  to  the  ear  a  change 
ofvoicd.    See  Tyndal  on  Sound  :  Lecture  V. 


-f  I 


I 


20 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


change  of  e  and  m,  well  attested  in  very  numerous 
instances  from  early  times  on.  The  following  all  belong 
to  the  classical  period,  or  were  older  : 


(Varro,  ap.  Lach.  Luc.  p.  25). 


Hedus, 

Haedus, 

cena, 

caena,     . 

merere, 

maerere. 

cespes, 

caespes. 

penuria, 

paenuria. 

Murena, 

Muraena, 

levis, 

laevis, 

ve! 

vae! 

ne! 

nae! 

On  inscriptions,  in- 
stanced by  grammarians, 
and  in  MSS. 


Varro,  L.  L.,  VII,  96.  In  pluribus  verbis  A  ante  E  alii 
ponunt,  alii  non  ,  .  .  .  ac  rustici  Pappum  Mesium, 
non  Mmsium, 

Now  assuming  the  proper  sound  of  e  to  be  that  of  a 
in  English  lake,  experiment  shows  it  to  be  difficult  to 
dwell  upon  this  sound  in  certain  situations  (namely,  in 
an  open  final  syllable  or  before  a  dental  or  labial  letter), 
without  mixing  with  it  an  after  ring  of  i.    This  done' 
the  result  will  nearly  coincide  with  what  will  hereafter 
appear  to  have  been  the  sound  of  m  in  Latin :  so  that  the 
e  which  was  often  confounded  with  m  must  have  sounded 
like  ei  and  ai  in  the  English  rein,  rain;  veil,  vail,  etc. 
[And  such  was,  perhaps,  the  "  E plenissimum  "  of  Cicero 
d.  Orat.  Ill,  13,  46.]  ' 

Another  impurity  of  e  is  mentioned  by  Quintilian,  I,  4, 
8,  and  5,  22  (and  Gell.  X,  24),  in  the  case  of  the  word  here, 
which  he  says  was  written  heri  both  by  the  ancients  and  by 
the  Emperor  Augustus,  while  in  the  pronunciation  of  his 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


21 


own  time  it  was  hard  to  decide  for  the  e  or  the  r.  What 
was  the  exact  nature  of  this  obscure  sound  must  now  be 
left  to  conjecture.  It  seems  to  be  indicated  by  Velius 
Longus  (p.  2235,  P.)  as  that  of  the  second  syllable  of  tibei 
for  tiU,  as  spoken  by  some  whom  he  blames ;  and  must 
have  been  heard  in  those  places  where  the  orthography 
fluctuated  between  e  and  i,  as  in  caeretes,  caerites,  etc. 
(See  Liv.  XXII,  1,  and  Drachenborck :  "  Utrumque  Cmri- 
tes  et  Cmretes  apud  ipsim  Livium  invenitur.") 

Quint.  Inst.  Orat.  I,  7,  24 :  «  Sibe  et  QUASE  scriptum  in 
multorum  libris  est,  sed  an  hoc  voluerint  auctores, 
nescio :  T.  Livium  ita  his  usum  ex  Pediano  comperi, 
qui  et  ipse  eum  sequabatur  ;   hcec  nos  I  littera  fini- 


» 


mus. 

Further,  the  short  e  must  have  had  an  uncertain,  indif- 
ferent, or  neutral  sound,  not  only  in  final  er  as  in  acer,* 
Muter,  pater,  inter,  etc.  (Corssen),  but  also  in  intellego, 
protenus,  donee,  saltern,  and  many  others,  f 

The  normal  and  approved  sound  of  E,  therefore,  was, 

e,  g.,  in 

<5  of  egi,  z=z  am  English  bake, 
while  e  in  ego  =  the  same  sound  shortened. 

Deviations  in  practice  were,  on  the  one  hand,  to  a  slight 
after  augment  of  i,  in  the  case  of  long  e,  making  eplenis- 
simum ;  thus  e  in 

*  Cf.  acris,  patris,  etc. 

f  We  shall  see,  later,  that  the  neutral  sound  of  e  was  often  inter- 
changed with  that  of  i,  in  early  Latin,  as  in  timedus,  navebos  (Rib- 
beck,  Com.  Ant.,  p.  10). 


% 


^y  #Vr"^^*-*, 


J-> 


22 


PRONUl^CIATION     OF     LATIl^. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


23 


1 


frenum 
Uvis 


=  ai  in  English  refrain,  etc. 


2.  «,  in  last  syllable  of  Mre,  and  others,  had  an  uncertain 
sound  between  e  and  i. 

3.  e,  as  in  uter,  etc,  was  neutraJ,  as  in  English  other. 


I. 

The  terms  exilis  and  a;^^«,/«,  applied  by  the  ancients 
to  the  vowel  I,  are  well  suited  to  the  sound  which  tradi- 
tion assigns  to  that  vowel.  This  is  the  sound  of  ee  in 
Enghsh  reed,  which  is  made  with  a  greater  contraction  of 
the  resounding  space  of  the  vocal  tube,  than  is  the  case 
m  soundmg  any  other  vowel.*  [I  spiritus,  prope  dentibus 
pressis."    Martin.  Capella.] 

Latin,  Ariminum;  Greek,  'Api^uvov,  Italian,  Rimini. 

Ihat  the  Latin  short  i  generally  partook  of  that  pecu- 
liar dullness  which  belongs  to  the  English  i  in  rid,  cannot 
be  shown. 

Corruptions  of  the  I  sound  were  at  all  times  very  com- 
mon.  From  the  nature,  the  direction,  and  the  history  of 
these  corruptions,  as  well  as  from  the  remarks  made  upon 
them  by  the  ancients,  much  probable  evidence  may  be 
elicited,  pointing  to  the  above-named  sound  as  the  proper 
one  of  I.  ^     ^ 

Af *  ^Zl^'^^'f^'^  "^^""^^  ^^y^d^l'«  I^^t^^res  mi  Sound,  p.  200  and 
Max  Muller  s  Lee,  on  Science  of  L,ng.,  od  Ser.,  p. 


Such  inferences  must  be  left  to  suggest  themselves. 
The  facts  which  appear  are  briefly  these : 

In  earlier  times,  and  in  the  sermo  rusticus  of  Cicero's 
time,  I  in  some  cases  was  pronounced  with  a  certain  ful- 
ness which  approximated  to  the  sound  of  e.  Men  spoke 
diequinti  and  diequmie,  ^^^istmi  and  pristme,  proclivi  and 
proclive  (A.  Gell.  X,  24),  lieri  and  here  (Quint.  I,  6),  tihi 
and  tihei  (Velius  Longus,  P.  2235).  For  this  fluctuation 
in  orthography  there  was  a  middle  sound  neither  quite  i 
nor  quite  e,  [Quint,  neque  e  plane  auditur  neque  t.] 
Lucilius  proposed  to  regulate  the  practice  of  his  time  by 
indicating  this  obscure  sound  by  EI,  and  confining  its 
use  to  the  plural  number  in  the  case  of  vowel  stems,* 
thus  genitive  singular  imeri,  nominative  plural  puereL 
\Ye  will  follow  this  no  farther  as  a  point  of  grammar, 
and  introduce  it  merely  in  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
the  sound  in  question.  That  it  is  evidence  of  such  impu- 
rity of  sound  in  the  vowel  i  in  Lucilius'  time,  and  not  a 
mere  form  of  grammatical  distinction  addressed  to  the 
eye,  may  easily  be  shown  ;f  but  for  brevity  will  be  taken 
as  true  on  the  opinion  of  Quintilian  (I,  7,  13,  15-18). 
The  common  people  of  Cicero's  time  went  further  and 
pronounced  full  broad  e  instead  of  u  For  this  is  the 
most  likely  interpretation  of  De  Orat.  Ill,  12,  46.  Quare 
Cotta  noster,  cuius  tu  ilia  lata,  Sulpici,  nonnumquam  imi- 
taris,  lit  Iota  literam  tollas,  et  E plenissimam  dicas,  non 
milii  oratores  antiquos,  sed  messores  videtur  imitari.  But 
neither  of  these  sounds  received  in  the  classical  times  the 
sanction  of  scholars,  and  down  to  a  late  period  to  which 

*  See  Scaurus,  p.  2255  ap.     Seyffert,  p.  142. 
f  Yet  see  Aul.  Gell.  XIX,  14,  in  fin. 


24 


PROXUNCIATION     OF     LATIX. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


25 


thej  continued  to  be  more  or  less  heard  they  incurred 
the  disapproval  of  grammarians,  who  declared  for  the 
thin,  fine,  j)roper  sound  of  i  {tenuitatejn  i  literce.  See 
Velius  Longus,  P.  p.  2235). 

There  was  another  impurity  of  the  i  sound  heard  in 
the  approximation  and  confusion  of  short  i  and  short  u, 
as  in  simus*  for  stimiis. 

The  words 


maxumus 

lacrumm 

optumus 

alumenta 

luhido 

artuhiis 

mancupium 

aucupare 


contumax 

existumat 

monumentum 

nolumus 

aurufex 


and  others  f 


are  mentioned  by  grammarians,  who  say  of  them  that 
they  contained  the  uncertain  sound,  which  they  describe 
as  "  something  half  way  between  i  and  ^^"  "  thicker  than 
i,  thinner  than  w,"— a  sound,  says  one  (Priscian,  Putsch, 
p.  539),  which  "  seems  to  be  that  of  the  Greek  yJ'  Cors- 
sen  observes  upon  these  forms,  as  well  as  upon  a  large 
number  of  others,  which  he  has  drawn  from  inscriptions 
of  all  periods,  that  the  uncertain  sound  of  i  or  u  appears 
to  have  been  used  almost  exclusively  before  labials  m,  b, 
p,  f.  In  this  observation  he  is  somewhat  more  discerning 
than  Priscian,  who,  however,  adds  to  his  list  of  words  in 


87. 


*  So  spoke  the  Emperor  Augustus,  according  to  Suet.  Vit.  Octav. 

r. 

t  Tibi  is  for  tali  (Sansc.  tubyam). 


Tvhicli  this  sound  was  heard  (on  the  testimony  of  Donatus) 
the  following :  video,  vim,  virtus,  vitium,  vix.* 

Finally,  for  our  guidance  in  practice,  we  have  to 
observe : 

1.  That  the  u  sound  in  such  words  was  the  ancient 
one,  which  may  be  gathered  from  the  fragments  of  the 
ancient  comedians  and  tragedians  (Ribbeck),  from  the 
MSS.  of  Plautus  and  Terence,  as  well  as  from  the  state- 
ments of  grammarians. 

2.  That  the  decision  of  Cicero  and  Cassar  was  given  in 
favor  of  i;  and 

3.  The  sanction  of  grammarians  to  the  i  sound. 
Agnaeus   Cornutus   (Putsch,  p.   2284).     Lacrumm  an 

lacj'imcB  ;  maxumus  an  maximns,  et  si  quae  similia  sunt 
scribi  debeant,  quaesitum  est.  Ter.  Varro  tradidit,  Caesa- 
rem  per  i  eiusmodi  verba  solitum  esse  enuntiare  et  scri- 
bere ;  inde  propter  auctoritatem  tanti  viri  consuetudinem 
fadam.  Sed  ego  in  anti(iuiorum  multo  libris,  quam 
Caius  Cassar  est,  per  u  pleraque  scripta  invenio :  optumus, 
intumus,  p^ulcherriimus,  dlcundum  .  .  .  . ;  melius  tamen 
et  ad  enuntiandum  et  ad  scribendum,  i  literam  pro  u 
ponere,  in  quod  iam  consuetudo  inclinavit. 

The  normal  sound  of  I,  therefore,  when  long,  was  as  e 
in  English  retail;  when  short,  as  e  in  retail 


THE   CONSONANT  I  (SEMI-VOWEL). 

Besides  the  sound  which  we  have  seen  represented 
by  I  as  a  vowel,  this  letter  played  also  another  part— 

*  And  for  some  other  rather  surprising  instances  of  this  sound, 
see  Vol.  Longus,  P.  p.  2216  (in  prodiro,  etc.). 


2 


J>G 


p  R  0  X  r  X  CI  A  T 1 0  X    0  r   l  a  t  i  x  . 


P  11  O  X  U  X  C  1  A  T  1  0  X     OF     L  A  T  I  X' . 


27 


that,  namely,  of  a  consonant,  or  (as,  in  view  of  all  the 
facts,  it  is  better  called),  a  semi-vowel. 

The  organs  being  all  set  for  the  pronunciation  of  the 
vowel  I,  the  intonation  was  more  or  less  completely  with- 
held ;  thereby  reducing  the  function  performed  more  or 
less  completely  to  that  of  a  consonantal  check.  This 
happened  only  when  I  occurred  immediately  before  a 
vowel  sound  in  the  same  syllable.*     There  are  two  cases. 

1.  In  the  beginning  of  a  word,  as  in  Janus,  JujypUer, 
iungo,  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  member  of  a 
compound  word,  as  in  cibiectus,  iniuria,  eiedus,  diiiicUco. 
In  such  a  situation,  the  consonant  I  was  sounded  like  the 
English  y  consonant:  thus,  Yanus,  Yiipjnter,  ahyectiis, 
diyudico. 

In  defence  of  this  sound,  which  is  that  of  tradition,  it 
need  only  be  said,  that  there  is  no  allegation  in  antiquity, 
nor  any  evidence  of  another  sound — of  such,  for  instance, 
as  that  of  j  in  French  or  of  g  before  ^  in  Italian  and 
English.f  Further,  any  such  distinct  consonantal  power 
could  not  have  belonged  to  a  letter  which  was  continually 
allowed  to  relapse  into  the  original  vowel  sound  of  i, 
and  was  always  spoken  of  as  essentially  the  same  letter, 


*  If  I  was  ever  a  consonant  in  the  end  of  a  word,  as  ai  (af),  hei 
(hej\  is  not  certain. 

f  Evidence  of  this  must  not  be  supposed  to  exist  in  the  fact,  that 
Jods,  dims,  dies,  etc.,  are  made  from  the  same  root  (Sansk.  did.). 
Jovis  (Diovis)  dropped  its  d  not  because  the  I  was  relied  upon  to 
represent  alone  the  dj  (dg)  sound,  but  because  the  i,  becoming  hard- 
ened into  the  consonant  sound,  rejected  the  preceding  d  as  incom- 
patible with  its  pronunciation.  A  parallel  appearance  is  that  of 
leUum  from  diiellum.  So  that  Italian  giorno  from  Latin  diumiis  is 
not  in  any  way  to  be  compared  here. 


called  by  the  same  name,*  and  marked  by  the  same 
sign. 

The  resolution  of  the  consonant  into  the  vowel  sound 
may  be  abundantly  shown,  and  will  appear  in  the  next  case. 
But  no  better  proof  can  be  wanted  than  this :  that  ancient 
grammarians  thought  it  worth  while  to  point  out  par- 
ticularly the  cases  in  which  I  was  not  a  vowel  but  a 
consonant.  Thus  P.  Nigidius  (ap.  Aul.  Gell.  IST.  A.,  XIX, 
14,  6),  the  learned  contemporary  of  Cicero,  says,  "  i  et  u 
vocales  semper  subditae  ....  Si  quis  putat  praeire  u 
in  his  :  '  Valerius,'  *  Vennonius,'  '  Yolusius,'  aut  i  in  his : 
'  iampridemj'  '  iecur,'  '  iocum,'  '  incundum,'  errabit,  quod 
hse  literae,  cum  prsseunt,  ne  vocales  quidem  sunt."  And 
it  is  manifest  that  no  remark  could  be  more  utterly  use- 
less and  uncalled  for  to  those  who  were  sensible  of  any 
such  difference  between  the  vowel  i  and  the  consonant  ^, 
as  is  implied  in  sounding  the  latter  like  several  modern 
languages  sound  their  /.f 

The  fact,  that  some  proposed  to  derive  the  name 
Janus  from  eo,  ire,  and  to  write  it  Eanus,  is  very  signi- 
ficant in  this  connection.     (See  Forcellini  sub.  v.) 

2.  The  second  case  is  the  occurrence  of  i  after  a 
vowel  in  the  preceding  syllable  and  before  a  vowel 
in  its  own  syllable,  within  a  simple  word:  as  in  aio, 
maior,  maiestas,  eius,  huius,  Veil,  Pompeii,  In  this  situ- 
ation i  discharged  the  function  of  a  double  consonant, 
according  to  the  very  explicit  testimony  of  the  ancients 
(^'pro  duplici  accipitur  consonant e''),    Now  let  any  one 

*  As  Quint  I,  4, 11.    Atqui  littera  Inbi  insidit,  coniicit  enim  est 
ab  illo  iacet. 

f  The  passage  alluded  to  will  be  better  appreciated  if  consulted 
more  at  length. 


W-- 


3^• 


28 


PRONUNCIATION     OF    LATIN. 


consider  the  statement  of  Priscian,  that  the  i  in   Troia 
must  be  treated  as  a  double  consonant  in  this  way  (like 
English  y  in  destroyer) !     Can  it  possibly  be  supposed 
that  a  double  consonant,  like,  say,  English  gg,  could  then 
be  contemplated  (Trogga  or  Trojja)  ?    If  this  were  the 
case,  nothing  could  be  accomplished  in   the   sound  by 
doubling;  for  Trojja  could  not  be  distinguished  from 
Troja,  more  than  caussa  from  causa  (with  s  sharp).     But 
if  this  were  not  the  case,  and  the  consonant  i  was  nothing 
but  the  vowel  i  rendered  without  tone  (/.  c.  English  ^, 
consonant),  then  it  is  evident  not  only  that  the  effect  of 
it  might  be  doubled  in  the  supposed  situation,  but  that 
it  would  necessarily  hQ  doubled.    And  Cicero's  manner 
of  writing  aiio,  Maiia,  and  the  manner  of  others  in  writ- 
ing Pompeiil,  was  only  a  faithful  rendering  of  the  sound 
inevitably  heard,  provided  ai,  etc.,  be  not  taken  as  a 
diphthong  (against  which  Priscian  warns),  and  provided 
i\^Q  consoniint  i  was  sounded  like  English  \j,     [Compare 
French  ennui  with  ennuyer  ;  envoi  with  envoyer,  etc.] 

Quint.  I,  4,  §  11 :  "Sciat  etiam  Ciceroni  placuisse  aiio, 
Maiiamque  geminata  i  scribere,  quod  si  est,  etiam 
iungetur  ut  consonans.  [Thus,  ay-yo,  or  in  fact  also 
ai-yo.]     For  another  use  of  II,  see  Quint.  I,  7,  §  14. 

Priscian,  I,  4,  18;*  ap.  P.  p.  545:  Et  i  quidem  modo 
pro  simplici,  modo  duplici  accipitur  consonante :  pro 
simplici,  quando  ab  ea  incipit  syllaba  in  principio 
dictionis  posita  subsequente  vocali  in  eadem  syllaba, 
ut  Juno,  Jupiter,  pro  duplici  autem,  quando  in  medio 
dictionis  ab  ea  incipit  syllaba  post  vocalem  ante  se 

T  *  oo^  ^""^^^^  ^^  '^''''^^^  ^^  Auf reclit  in  ZeUmh.  f.  Vergl  Sprachf., 


PEONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


29 


positam  subsequente  quoque  vocali  in  eadem  syllaba, 
ut  maius,  2)eius,  eius,  in  quo  loco  antiqui  solebant 
geminare  eandem  i  literam  et  maiius,  peiius,  eiius, 
N.B.!  scribere,  quod  non  aliter  pronunciari  posset,  quam  si 
cum  superiore  syllaba  prior  i,  cum  sequente  altera 
proferretur,  ut  pei-us,  ei-ius,  mai-ius.  Nam  quam- 
vis  sit  consonans,  in  eadem  syllaba  geminata  jungi 
non  potest.  Ergo,  non  aliter,  quam  tellus,  mannus 
proferri  debuit.  TJnde  Fompeiii  quoque,  genitivum, 
per  tria  Hi  scribebant,  quorum  duo  superiora  loco 
consonantium  accipiebant,  ut  si  dicas  Pompeiii  \i.  e, 
Fompeyyi].  Nam  tribus  Hi  junctis  qualis  possit 
syllaba  pronunciari  ?  Nam  postremum  ^  pro  vocali 
est  accipiendum,  quod  Caesari  doctissimo  artis  gram- 
maticae  placitum  a  Victore  quoque  in  arte  gramma- 
tica  de  syllabis  comprobatur.  Pro  simplici  quoque 
in  media  dictione  invenitur,  sed  in  compositis,  ut 
iniuria,  adiwigo,  eiectus,  reiice.  Virgilius  in  Buco- 
lico  proceleusmaticum  posuit  pro  dactylo : 

Tityre  ptascentes  aflumine  reiice  capellas.    See  also 
the  same,  I,  9,  50. 

I  consonant  is  rendered  in  Greek  by  iota,  as  in : 
no/x7r?}io^,  Br^ioL   (Veii),  Tdiog, 

Finally,  then,  Latin  I  consonant  =  English  y  in  yam, 
young,  etc. 


i 


The  vowel  0  is  to  be  identified  with  the  Greek  omi- 
cron,  as  well  in  its  nature  as  in  the  shape  of  its  written 
sign.     The  sound  approved  as  its  proper  one  in  the 


ii 


30 


PEONUNCIATIOX    OF     LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


31 


classical  period  seems  to  have  been  but  one  and  simple  ; 
and  there  is  nothing  to  disturb  the  accepted  opinion,  that 
this  sound  was  the  same  which  is  heard,  first  short  and 
then  long,  in  the  English  word  postpone. 

In  the  practical  rendering  of  Latin  short  o,  those  Avho 
speak  the  English  language  need  to  be  guarded  against 
using  the  short  o  of  English  not,  etc.,  between  which  and 
the  simple  shortened  sound  of  o  (as  in  English  post) 
there  is  a  qualitative  difference — a  difference  due,  as 
every  qualitative  difference  must  be,  to  a  different  atti- 
tude of  the  parts  engaged  in  modifying  the  extent  and 
shape  of  the  room  in  which  the  voice  resounds.  The 
English  is  in  the  habit  of  deadening  the  sound  of  all  its 
short  vowels.  This  is  done  with  the  o  of  7iot,  and  a  pro- 
longation of  that  sound  will  not  give  the  a  of  post,  but 
rather  that  of  frost.  Of  such  deviation  in  the  simple  o 
sound  of  the  Latin  we  have  no  proof.  Probably  no  one  will 
question  that  the  o  of  ser?nd  was  sounded  like  the  same 
vowel  in  sermonis  ;  and  yet  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing 
the  character  of  the  vowel  sound  to  have  been  otherwise 
heard  in  arlor  or  arhoris,  except  a  supposed  necessity  for 
such  a  change,  arising  from  the  closure  of  the  syllable. 
Now  this  supposition  is  natural,  to  be  sure,  to  the  speaker 
of  the  English  language,  but  it  cannot  on  that  account 
only  be  applied  to  the  Latin.  And  if  any  will  maintain  a 
second  sound  for  o,  they  must  sustain  their  opinion  by 
some  sort  of  evidence  drawn  from  the  Latin  itself,  or  from 
some  natural  law  of  speech  of  universal  application.* 

*  The  0  in  unaccented,  so  to  speak,  neglected  places,  as  in  the 
ancient  nominatives  jiUos,  servos,  and  perhaps  in  many  other  forms, 
was  no  doubt  often  blurred  ;  but  in  thus  losing  its  own  character- 
istic  tone  it  merely  became  neutral  at  most.    This  neutrality  befel 


How  the  Greeks  heard  Latin  o  may  be  inferred  from 


*Fodav6g^ 

for 

Rhodanus  (Polyb.) 

Kevofidvoi, 

(I 

Cenomanni,     " 

HoaroviiLogj 

a 

Postumius, 

"P^flT], 

it 

Roma, 

KaTTt,T(i)?iLOVj 

a 

Capitolium,  etc.* 

In  the  forms  Plato.  Zeno,  etc.,  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  the  a  had  the  same  sound  as  the  w  in  UXdrcjv, 
etc.,  and  yet  it  is  not  likely  that  the  final  a  of  Latin 
names  was  commonly  sounded  long. 

So  much  for  the  recognized  regular  sound  of  o.  There 
were  irregularities  in  practice. 

1.  Grammarians  state,  and  MSS.  show  (as  the  inscrip- 
tions are  said  to  do  also),  that  in  the  ancient  Latin,  o 
appeared  written  in  many  places  where  u  was  afterwards 
the  accepted  orthography  of  the  classical  age. 

Priscian  (P.  p.  554)  says :  Multa  praeterea  vetustissimi 
etiam  in  principalibus  mutabant  syllabis,  ut  cungrum  pro 
congrum,  cuncJiin  pro  concliin,  huminem  pro  hominem 
proferentes,  funtes    pro   fontes,   frundes    pro  frondes. 

most  of  the  Latin  vowels  when  situated  in  unimportant  places,  so 
that  frequently  they  went  practically  for  nothing :  witness  xincluTiif 
sceclum,  accipter  (for  accipiter) ;  spiclum  (for  spiculum) ;  the  Greek 
renderings  AetrAof,  KarAo:-,  for  Lentulus,  Catulm ;  avpra  (for 
supera)^,  and  when  defatigat us  wa,3  written  defetigatus  (Ter.  And. 
667),  that  e  should  probably  not  be  taken  with  the  true  sound  of  e, 
and  representing  thus  a  new  sound  for  a,  but  only  as  an  accidental 
rendering  of  a  neutral  a. 

*  This  comparison  will  have  to  go  for  what  it  is  worth.  Some,  the 
most  perhaps,  among  us  suppose  the  Greek  o  =  o  in  English  not. 
This  is  not  our  opinion.  The  modern  Greeks  know  no  distinction 
of  sound  between  w  and^o. 


i 


I 

i 

-•a 

i 


I 


I-' 


« 


«t«l 


32 


PKOXUXCIATIOX     OF    LATIN. 


I 


Unde  Lucretius in  Lib.  Ill ;  Atqiii  animarum  etiam, 

qucBcunqiie  Acheriinte  profiindo :  pro  Acherofite  .... 
Quae  tamen  a  junioribus  repudiata  sunt,  quasi  rustico 
more  dicta.  U  quoque  multis  Italiae  populis  in  usu  non 
erat,  sed  e  contrario  utebantur  o:  unde  Eomanorum 
quoque  vetustissimi  in  multis  dictionibus  loco  ejus  o 
posuisse  inveniuntur,  poplicum  pro  ptibUcmn,  quod  testa- 
tur  Papyrianus  de  Orthog.,  poMrum  pro  pidchrum,  col- 
pam  pro  culpam  dicentes,  et  HcrcoUm  pro  Herculem,  et 
maxime  Digamma  [r]  antecedent^  hoc  faciebant,  ut: 
servos  pro  servus,  volgos  pro  vulgus,  Davos  pro  Daviis. 

There  must  have  been  a  transition  period  when  o  thus 
situated  (chiefly  after  v,  or  before  s  or  m,  in  final  sylla- 
bles) had  a  sound  approximating  u,  and  that  sound  must 
have  been  heard  even  in  the  time  of  Cicero,  in  such  words 
Tis  cervos,  equom,  servom,  cBvom,  rivom,  nativom,  etc.  This 
0  was  retained  so  late  for  the  sake  of  a  grammatical  the- 
ory, and  was  subjected  thus  for  a  time,  till  it  was  relieved 
of  this  duty,  to  the  anomalous  representation  of  the  u 
sound,  which  had  become  the  prevalent  one  for  the  situa- 
tion above  indicated. 

Quint.  I,  7,  26.  Kostri  pr^ceptores  servmn  cervumque 
U  et  0  litteris  scripserunt,  quia  subjecta  sibi  vocalis 
in  unum  sonum  coalescere  et  confundi  nequiret :  nunc 
IT  gemina  scribuntur  ea  ratione,  quam  reddidi.  But  the 
uncertainty  here  indicated  was  early  removed,  and  the  o 
and  the  u  clearly  separated. 

There  was  another  fluctuation  of  orthography  in  which 
the  0  was  concerned,  namely,  the  putting  o  for  au.  This 
occurred  in  contemporary  forms  of  the  same  stem,  and 
to  a  limited  extent  in  all  periods  of  the  language. 


PKOKUNCIATION     OF     LATIJS:. 


33 


Cato  wrote,  dehorito,      tor  dehaurito  ; 

The  ancient  comedians,  lotus,  "  lautus  ; 

(See  Ribbeck  &  Priscian.)        jjlostrum,        "   plaUStriWl  J 

Cicero,  ^;ZocZo,  "  plaiido ; 

exploditur,    "  explauditur ; 
clodicat      and  claudicat ; 

while  in  the  time  of  the  empire  also  we  find : 

(Suet.  Vit.  Tib.  Caes.  II)  Clodius  and  Claudius  ; 
(    "    Yesp.  22)  plostra     "  plaustra ; 

Polla       "    Paula,  and  others. 

It  may  be  supposed  with  Corssen  (I,  p.  148),  that  this  o 
had  the  fullest  possible  sound. 

To  repeat,  then ;  the  stamp  of  the  Latin  o  sound  was 
that  of  0  in  English  note.    Hence 

0  sounded  like  o  in  English  expose  ; 
d        "  "  "       ex2)osition, 

(and  not  like  o  in  English  expositor). 

Deviations. — 1.  A  confusion  of  o  and  u,  which  once 
obtained,  was  disallowed  by  the  classic  Latin. 

2.  Already  in  the  time  of  Cicero  (and  by  him),  o  was 
sometimes  written  for  au — an  inaccuracy  which  had  its 
seat  probably  in  the  popular  speech,  and  which  showed 
itself  in  literary  forms  to  a  small  extent  in  all  times.  It 
is  safe  to  presume  that  this  o  contained  only  the  radical 
sound  above  given,  but  was  given  as  full  as  might  be. 
(Compare  English  clothes,  earlier  cloathes.) 


1 


34 


PR02^U:t^CIATI0N     OF     LATIN. 


Marius  Victorinus  (P.  p.  2454)  says :  "  V  literam,  quo- 
tiens  enuntiamus,  productis  et  coeuntibus  labris  effere- 
mus.'^ 

Professor  Tyndal  (on  Sound,  p.  200) :  "  For  the  pro- 
duction of  the  sound  u  (English  oo  in  hoop),  I  must  push 
my  lips  forward,  so  as  to  make  the  cavity  of  the  mouth  as 
deep  as  possible,  at  the  same  time  making  the  orifice  of 
the  mouth  small."*  These  two  statements,  so  nearly 
coincident,  point  to  an  identity  of  sound  in  Latin  ti  and 
English  00  in  pool,  hoop.  This  is  the  traditional  sound  of 
the  Latin  vowel,  and  the  probable  evidence  within  our 
reach  contributes  to  support  the  same. 

The  Greeks  rendered  the  Latin  u  by  their  ov,  thus : 


Also, 


Sallustius, 

liaXovario^, 

TertuUianus, 

TeprovXtavog, 

Lugdunum, 

Aovydovvov, 

Superbus, 

Jlovnep(3og, 

Brutus, 

BpovTog, 

Numitor, 

Noi;/i?jT6)p, 

Corbulo, 

KoppovXcjv, 

populus. 

no}nov?LOvg, 

These  forms  are  from  MSS.  (of  Polybius,  Plutarch,  and 
Dion  Cassius).    It  is  said  that  inscriptions  show : 

*  Compare  Max  MiUler's  Science  of  Language,  2d  Series,  p.  130. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


35 


for  tuum, 
"  laborum, 
"  suo, 
"  singularii. 


TOVOfl, 

Xapopovfj,, 

aovcj, 

GLyyovXdpioi, 


and  many  such ;  but  we  can  dispense  with  further  exam- 
ples when  we  have  the  statement  of  Marius  Victorinus 
(p.  2454) :  "  u  litteram,  quam  nisi  per  ov  conjunctam, 
Graeci  scribere  ac  pronuntiare  non  possunt."  It  is  very 
clear,  therefore,  that  such  a  pronunciation  as  corhewlo  for 
corhulo  is  quite  out  of  the  question.  It  was  entirely  in 
the  power  of  the  Greek  to  express  this  sound,  but  it  can 
never  be  supposed  to  have  been  heard  in  Kop,3oi;Awv. 

But  while  the  statement  of  Victorinus,  amply  supported 
by  examples,  is  sufficient  to  remove  all  doubt  that  the 
proper  sound  of  u  w^as  that  of  Greek  ov  ;  the  fact  is  that 
there  were  various  other  ways  of  wanting  in  Greek  the 
Latin  syllables  containing  this  vowel.  Some  of  these 
must  be  taken  to  indicate  an  entire  surrender  of  the  u 
sound  in  obedience  to  certain  influences  operative  in  the 
Greek  language.  Thus  Strehlke  {Zeitschf.  /.  Vergl 
Sprachf.,  I,  p.  223)  shows  admirably  how  Lucius,  Lucul- 
lus,  etc.,  were  rendered,*  Aeviuog,  AevKovXXog,  etc.,  in 
obedience  to  a  principle  of  popular  etymology,  pointing 
to  XevKog  ;  just  as  AoAoj3t'AAa^  (besides  AoAo/3fc'AAaf)  for 
the  sake  of  the  supposed  element  doXog. 

But  other  varieties  of  Greek  rendering  cannot  be 
accounted  for  in  this  way,  and  are  found,  moreover,  to 
correspond  with  analogous  fluctuations  in  the  Latin 
orthography  itself,  both  together  pointing  to  certain 
varieties  of  sound  in  the  Latin  w. 

*  Besides  morD  rarely  the  ordinary  Aor/c^of,  etc. 


] 


r^,X^^li^dUSSEffi 


36 


PRO  NUN  CI  ATI  ox    OF    LATIN. 


1.  These  are :  o  for  u,  as  seen  in 

MofiiiLog                              for 

Mummius, 

I.aTopvlvog                            " 

Saturninus, 

KaXiyoXag                           " 

Caligula, 

KopoyKaviog                        " 

Coruncanius, 

'I6/3ac                                   " 

Juba, 

UoK^iog  (also  UovnXtog)    " 

Publius,  etc. 

Besides  the  widespread  ancient  use  of  o  for  later  u  in 
Latin  words,  as  in 


polsi 

for 

pulsi,  (Eib.  Com.,  p.  136.) 

exfociont 

a 

exfociunt. 

vivom 

a 

vivum,  (Ter.) 

Fohius 

a 

Fulvius, 

Hecoba 

(( 

Hecuba,         ^ 

probaveront 

a 

probaverunt,  > 

.  (Quint.  I,  4,  16.) 

dederont 

a 

dederunt,        j 

- 

aequom 

a 

aequum,          "j 

quom 

quum,             > 

•  (Ter.) 

quoi 

a 

cui.                  J 

A  similar  orthography  was  practiced  to  a  limited 
extent  also  in  classical  times.  It  is  said  *  that  the  best 
MSS.  not  only  of  Plant,  and  Lucret.,  but  also  of  Virgil 
and  Cicero  have  such  forms  as : 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


37 


\ 


volt. 

volnus. 

voltis. 

avolsa. 

volgus,- 

revolsum, 

volpes, 

Voltumus,  etc., 

*  Coresen's  Aussprache,  1, 260. 


while  MSS.  of  Livy  have  promuntorium,  and  those  of 
Ovid  and  Pliny  show  both  coralium  and  curalium,  (Met 
IV,  750.) 

Thus  in  some  cases  even  in  the  classical  age  (chiefly 
before  liquids,  as  appears  in  the  above  examples),  there 
must  have  been  a  sound  given  to  u  approximating  to  the 
0,  perhaps  analogous  to  that  which  is  heard  for  o  in  Eng- 
lish front  and  London.  But  the  tendency,  in  the  best 
period  of  the  language,  was  to  distinguish  and  purify 
the  u ;  and  when  the  word  avolsa  was  written  avulsa, 
we  must  suppose  that  the  u  was  sounded  as  in  English 
full  {L  e.,  its  own  sound). 

2.  A  second  impurity  of  the  Latin  w  was  a  tone  like 
that  of  Greek  v  [alluded  to  apparently  by  Velius  Long., 
p.  2215,  from  Verr.  Flac],  heard  by  the  Greeks,  at  least 
sometimes,  in : 

Eomulus,  which  appears  as  'Pw/zvAof, 
Marullus,      «  «        "    MdpvXXog, 

Tullius  "  «        «   TvXXiog, 

Capua  «  «        "    KaTTVT}, 

and  Cures  "  "        "   Kvpeig. 


This  must  have  been  the  half-way  sound  spoken  of  by 
Quintilian  (I,  4,  8),  when  he  says :  medius  est  quidam  TJ 
et  I  literae  sonus;  non  enim  sic  optimum  dicimus  ut 
opimwn."  In  optimum,  therefore,  even  after  the  change 
from  the  older  orthography  of  optumum,  was  heard  this 
middle  sound,  not  quite  u,  not  quite  i,  i,  e.,  without 
doubt  the  French  u,  or  German  il.  This  must  have  been 
the  sound  of  u  in  such  words  as : 


I 


J, 
i 


38 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


sacrifuco, 

magnuficus, 

signufex  (signuficem),' 

carnufex, 

lubet, 

lacruma, 

manufestus, 

maxume, 

So  also  probably  in 

Tolumus, 
nolumus, 


I  for  some  time  I 
before  they  were 
I  written, 


saerifico, 
Imagnificus, 
signifex, 
carnifex, 
libet, 
lacrima, 
manifestus, 
maxime. 


sumus, 
emolumentum, 


and  in  many  other  words,  which  like 

inclutus,  and  inclytus, 

obstupui,  «  obstipui,  (Ter.) 

Brundusium         "  Brundisium, 

remained  of  uncertain  orthography  during  the  classical 
period,  (when  i  had  become  established  as  the  regular 
form  in  carnifex,  libet,  mstimo,  victima,  etc.,  etc.). 

In  these  words  the  full  sound  *  of  u  (besides  that  form 
of  writing)  was  antique,  and  its  remains  in  Cicero's  time 
were  characterized  by  that  author  as  rustic.  The  more 
refined  and  approved  sound  was,  however,  not  quite  that 
of  ^,  as  stated  by  Velius  Longus  (P.  p.  2216);  while 
grammarians  directed  it  to  be  nevertheless  so  written  ; 
and  cite  C.  J.  Caesar  as  authority. 

Mar.  Victor.  (P.  p.  2465) :  "voces  istas  (i.  e.  proximum, 
etc.)  per  i  scribite."    lb.—"  C.  Caesar  per  i  scripsit  ut 

*  Atque  illis  (antiquis)  fere  placuisse  per  u  talia  scribere  et  enun- 
tiare.    Vel.  Long. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


39 


apparet  ex  titulis  ipsius."    (Cf.  Cassiodorus  ap.  P.  p. 
2284.) 

Agnseus  Cornutus  (P.  p.  2284) :  Lacrumce  an  lacrimcB; 
maxumus  an  maximus,  et  si  quae  similia  sunt  scribi 
debeant,  quaesitum  est.  Terentius  Varro  tradidit, 
Csesarem  per  i  ejus  modi  verba  solitum  esse  enuntiare 
et  scribere. 

[To  represent  this  half-way  sound  was  the  object  of 
one  of  the  three  characters  (  h  )  which  the  Emperor 
Claudius  attempted  to  add  to  the  Latin  alphabet.  Vid. 
Tac.  Ann.  XI,  c.  13,  and  Suet,  in  Claud,  c.  41,  and  the 
Grammarians.] 

RECAPITULATION. 

I.  The  proper  sound  of  U, 

as  in  Brutus,   Bructeri,      bule,    >  ^  ^^^^  ^^  .^^^^^^ 
Gr.     BpovTog,  BpovKrepoL,  povXrj,) 

The  proper  sound  of  it  =  English  u  in  picU. 

II.  In  classical  times  there  were  a  few  instances,  ap- 
parently accidental,  in  which  syllables  written  with  u  had 
something  of  the  o  sound.  To  pronounce  o  for  u  after 
the  ancient  style,  as  dederont  for  dederunt,  mquom  for 
cequum,  was  thought  inelegant  in  the  time  of  Cicero. 
Yet  the  short  u,  especially  in  a  final  syllable  before  s  and 
m,  often  had  a  neutral  sound  easily  exchangeable  with  the 
neutral  sound  of  o, 

III.  U  sometimes  (but  more  frequently  i)  is  written 
to  answer  to  a  sound  like  the  French  w.  Thus,  u  in  Latin 
incluta,  like  u  in  French  lutter» 


,  iii*«as«i»»M. 


40 


PBOKUNCIATIOK     OF    LATIN. 


CONSONANT  "V"  (SEMI-VO WEL),   VA  U. 

Withhold  the  intonation  from  the  vowel  u,  and  its 
function  is  reduced  to  that  of  a  consonantal  check,  equal 
to  the  English  lo,  which,  by  the  slightest  alteration,  may 
be  hardened  to  the  adjacent  consonant  v.    This  change 
from  Yowel  to  consonant  passed  upon  the  Latin  u  when 
it  was  followed  in  the  same  syllable  by  a  vowel  sound. 
And  the  nature  or  power  of  the  Latin  v  consonant  was 
just  that  of  the  English  v,  in  which  case  it  was  fully  a 
consonant,  or  it  only  approached  this,   and  retaining 
something,  but  not  all,  of  its  original  vowel  character, 
was  equivalent  to  the  English  zv.    Accordingly,  the  evi- 
dence which  we  have  to  adduce  points  to  a  normal  sound 
for  this  consonant,  which  is  a  medium  between  English 
V  and  w.    It  is  soft  like  to  when,  after  s,  g,  and  q,  in  the 
same  syllable,  it  is  followed  by  a  vowel ;  hard  like  v  in 
other    situations.       Thus,    suetus,    sanguis,    qidsquam, 
sounded  swetus,  sangivis,  qivisqivam,  and  seruus,  imlgus, 
servus,  vulgus.^ 

In  the  way  of  evidence  we  remark  : 

1st.  That  this  u  is  pointedly  and  most  expressly  dis- 
tinguished by  the  grammarians  from  the  u  vowel ;  as  by 
Nigidius  (ap.  Gell.  XIX,  14,  6):  "  Fin  Valerius,  Volu- 
sius,  etc.,  is  not  a  vowel  at  all."  Quintilian  (I,  7,  26) 
says  that  the  writing  ceruum  with  the  sign  which  belongs 
to  the  vowel  u,  does  not  represent  the  sound  that  is 
heard.  Again  (I,  4),  in  his  ''seruus  et  uulgus  iEolicum 
digammon  desideratur.'^    That  is,  "a  suitable  representa- 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  A. 


!l1i 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


41 


tive  of  the  sound  of  the  first  u  in  seruus,  etc.,  would  be 
made  by  a  character  like  that  of  the  (lost)  ^olic  f." 
Accordingly  the  Latin  grammarians  very  generally  speak 
of  the  consonant  u  by  the  name  Digamma,  as  Agnaeus 
Cornutus  (P.  p.  2282) :  "  Nos  hodie  V  literam  in  duarum 
literarum  potestatem  coegimus ;  nam  modo  pro  Digamma 
scribitur,  modo  pro  Vocali."  Velius  Longus  (P.  p.  2223) : 
•"  V  literam  Digamma  esse— debemus  advertere— in  eo, 
quod  est  QVIS."  See  also  Mar.  Victorin.  (P.  p.  2461).* 
If  we  knew  precisely  and  independently  the  sound  here 
contemplated  as  that  of  the  Digamma,  our  inquiry  touch- 
ing the  sound  of  u  consonant,  would  now  be  satisfied. 
But  our  knowledge  of  the  Digamma's  sound  is  conditioned 
by  the  very  question  upon  which  we  are  now  engaged. 
It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  proceed,  and  to  our  first  ob- 
servation— that  the  u  tvas  truly  a  consonant— ^Q  add  a 
second,  viz. : 

2d.  That  even  wimi  a  consonant  the  u  was  always  felt 
to  have  such  intimate  relations  to  the  vowel  u  that  they 
each  respectively  easily  passed  into  the  place  of  the  other, 
as  when  for 


a 


tenuior, 
quattu-or, 
extenuantur,  " 
genua,  " 

and  conversely  for 

silva, 


we  find  tenvior,f 

quat-tuor  (quattvor), 

extenvantur, 

genva. 


a 


a 


a 


i( 


a 


silua,!  etc. 


*  Also  p.  2463. 

f  Lachman  on  Lucret.  p.  192-3,  and  Corssen  II,  p.  167. 
X  In  ancient  Latin  it  would  seem  that  a  difference  between  the 
vowel  and  the  consonant  u  was  scarcely  appreciated,  if  we  will 


t 


t 


,  ■'ne^m^^^M 


42 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


(( 


it 


Destroy  the  connection  of  v  with  following  vowel  in 
the  same  syllable,  and  v  immediately  reverts  to  u,  thus : 

From  ancient  plovo  comes  finally  pluo ; 

"  "  flovo      "  "      fluo; 

From  the  root  gavicl,  when  i  falls  out,  we  have  gaudeo ; 

audeo ; 

nauta ; 

fautum ; 

cautum ; 

lautum. 


a 


With 


avid,  " 

navita,         " 
faveo,  instead  of  favitum, 
caveo,  "       cavitum, 

lavo,  with  falling  out  of  i, 


« 


tc 


u 


u 


6t 


And  if  any  think  it  likely  that  the  u  of  laiitum,  etc., 
retains  the  consonantal  power  of  the  same  u  when  fol- 
lowed by  a  vowel  (like  modern  Greek  avrog,  pronounced 
aftos),  then  to  be  considered  is  the  further  form  lotum,* 
In  the  same  way  we  get  Opiter,  for  Aupiter,  from  avi- 
pater.f 

Seeing  then,  1st,  that  u  was  certainly  a  consonant,  and 
as  such,  therefore,  essentially  distinct  from  u  vowel ;  and 
2d,  that  this  consonant  was  at  the  smallest  remove  from 
the  vowel  u,  the  natural  probability  is  in  favor  of  the 
English  tu  as  its  sound. 

Compare  now  the  Greek  equivalents : 

OvaKnaiovg,      for        Vaccaeos, 
lepovihog,         "  Servilius, 


judge  by  the  words  of  Scaurus  {De  Orthog.,  P.  p.  2251) :  antiqui  — 
—  ignorantes  earn  {u)  praepositum  Vocali,  consonantis  vice  fungi 
et  poni  pro  ea  litera  quae  sit/. 

*  Cicero  de  Divinatione  II,  40,  supposes  cauneas  intelligible  for 
cave  ne  eas. 

f  And  vid.  Prise.  P.  p.  560 :  Non  potest  Vau,  id  est  Digamma,  in 
fine  svUabfD  inveniri. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


43 


OvTjioif 

for 

Veii, 

^EXovTjTiay 

(( 

Helvetia, 

Kovadoi, 

<( 

Quadi. 

This  orthography  of  the  Greek  favors  the  opinion  that 
the  Greeks  heard  just  our  w  sound  in  the  words  above 
given.*  But  the  passage  from  w  to  v  is  short  and  easy, 
and  there  is  reason  .to  believe  that  the  latter  came  to  be, 
and  in  the  classic  age  was,  nearer  the  actual  sound  of  u 
consonant  in  the  majority  of  cases,  i.  e.,  probably  every- 
where except  in  the  combination  qu,  gu,  su  (of  which 
more  particularly  below).  For  this  opinion  there  is  sup- 
port to  be  found  in  the  general  tendencies  of  the  Latin 
speech ;  but  even  to  glance  at  this  would  carry  us  too  far, 
and  we  will  adduce  here  only : 

1st.  The  circumstance  that,  besides  the  spelling  of  ov, 
the  Greeks  employed  also  /3  to  represent  Latin  u  conso- 
nant, thus : 

Brjtoi,  for    Veii ; 

(^XdfiLog,  as  well  as  (P^aomog,      "      Flavins, 
'E?il3rjTia,  "     Helvetia,  etc., 

and  these  forms  were  in  use  at  the  same  time  with  the 
others  in  ov, 

2d.  The  statement  of  the  grammarian  Velius  Longus 
(P.  p.  2223):  "Vliteram  Digamma  esse  interdum,  non 
tantum  in  his  (vocibus)  debemus  animadvertere,  in  qui- 
bus  sonat  cum  dliqua  aspiratione,  ut  in  Vahnte  et  Vitulo, 
etprimitivo,  et  Genitivo,  sed  etiam  in  his  quibus  confusa 
haec  litera  est,  in  eo  quod  est  Quis. 

*  Ov  is  also  the  modem  Greek  equivalent  for  English  «r,  as  in 
Ovil'kiy^riiv  for  Wellington,  etc. 


44 


PRONUKCIATIOK     OF     LATIN. 


I 


Now  in  view  of  all  that  we  have  heretofore  seen  of  the 
nature  of  this  letter  u,  the  natural  conclusion  (it  seems 
not  too  much  to  say),  the  irresistible  conclusion  from 
such  language  is,  that  Velius  Longus  understood  by  the 
u,  ^*  sounded  with  an  aspiration,^'  the  sound  of  English  v, 
as  Valc7ite  ;  while  for  that  sound  of  it  in  which  he  says  it 
was  ''combined,  or  confused  {confusa)''  the  English  w 
answers  for  it  exactly,  as  Qwis. 

That  the  w  sound  was  that  heard  in  u  after  g,  s,  and  q, 
seems  to  have  been  certainly  the  opinion  of  Priscian,  who 
says  (Lib.  I) :  Est,  quando  amittit  V  yim  literae  tam 
vocalis  quam  consonantis  {i.  e.,  becomes  a  sort  of  half 
w^ay  thing  between  the  two),  ut  cum  inter  Q  et  aliam 
vocalem  ponitur  .  .  .  .  uti :  QVISQVAM.  Hoc  idem  ple- 
rumque  patitur  etiam  inter  g  et  aliquam  vocalem,  ut : 
sanguis,  liiigua,  8  quoque  antecedente  u,  et  sequente  a 
vel  e  hoc  idem  fit,  ut :  suadeo,  suavis,  suesco,  suetus. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Priscian  here  makes  no  distinction 
w^hatever  as  to  the  sound  of  u  in  gu-,  su-,  qu-. 

It  has  been  frequently  affirmed  *  in  modern  times  that 
the  u  in  qu  was  silent  in  the  classical  Latin,  and  that 
these  two  letters  together  represented  no  other  sound  than 
that  of  the  guttural  tenuis  h  ;  thus  ki,  kae,  kod,  kis,  etc., 
instead  of  kwi,  kwae,  etc.,  for  qui,  quae,  etc.  There  is 
certainly  some  show  of  ground  for  this  opinion,  and  since 
that  is  true,  we  may  not  perhaps  (even  upon  the  proof 
we  have  brought),  assume  the  matter  to  be  entirely  set- 
tled, until  an  Investigation  is  undertaken  more  extended 
and  particular  than  is  now  possible  to  us.      Such  an 

*  See  the  bold  statement  made  by  J.  F.  Richardson,  in  Roman 
Orthoepy,  p.  43  and  after. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF    LATIN 


45 


investigation  will  certainly  make  it  evident  that  in  a 
number  of  particular  cases  the  u  after  q  was  not  heard,* 
in  some  regularly,  as  quum  {cum),  quotidie  (cotidie),  and 
others:  in  some  generally,  as  equus  {ecus?),  coquits\ 
{cocus),  and  others:  in  some  occasionally,  as  quoque \ 
(sounded  kol^e),  and  others.  Other  reasons,  moreover, 
and  reasons  too  of  apparent  force,  have  been  given  in 
favor  of  the  opinion  that  the  dropping  of  the  u  element 
was  the  rule  in  qu.  But  our  belief  is  that  the  superior 
weight  of  evidence  lies  decidedly  on  the  other  side.  We 
shall  have  to  content  ourselves  here  w^th  a  few  of  the 
many  very  clear  statements  of  grammarians. 

Vel.  Long.  (P.  p.  2223) :  "  V  literam  Digamma  esse — 
debemus  advertere — in  eo,  quod  est  QVIS." 

Quiutilian  XII,  10,  §  30 :  "  Duras  et  ilia  (sc.  Q)  sylla- 
bas  facit,  quas  ad  conjungendas  demum  subjectas 
sibi  vocales  est  utilis,  alias  supervacua,  ut  equos  liac 
ct  equum  scribimus;  cum  etiam  ipsaB  hae  vocales 
{i.  e.,  uo  and  uu)  duae  efficiant  sonum,  qualis  apud 
GrcBcos  nullus  est,  ideoque  scrihi  illorum  litteris  non 
potest.^'    But  what  easier  than  EKOig,  tKovfi  ? 

Scaurus  (P.  p.  2253) :  "  Q  litera  aequo  retenta  est, 

quia  cum  ilia  V  litera  conspirat,  quoties  consonantis 
loco  ponitur,  id  est,  pro  vau  litera,  ut:  QVIS, 
QVALIS." 

*  It  ought  to  be  considered  that  u  was  not  unfrequently  dropped 
in  sound  after  other  consonants  also,  as  after  s,  g,  and  t  Cf. 
saxium  for  suavium,  urgeo  for  urgueo,  and  the  old  Latin  sam  for 
siiam,  Us  for  tnis,  etc.  Vid.  Schleicher,  Zeitsch.  f.  Vergl.  Sprachf., 
II,  377. 

f  See  the  pun  of  Cicero  rcpoiied  bj  Quintilian  I,  0,  3,  47.  • 


I 


4G  PIIOXUXCI  ATIOX     OF     LATIX. 

Marius  Victorinus  (P.  p.  2461) :  "  !N'os  vero,  qui  non 
habemus  hujus  vocis  (i.  e.,  Digamma) — notam,  in 
ejus  locum,   quoties  una  vocalis,  pluresve  junctae 

unam  syllabam  faciunt,  substituimus  V  literam 

At  cum  (V)  praeponitur  vocali,  tunc  accipitur  pro 
consonante,  ut  est  ANGVIS,  EXTINGVIT,  LIN- 
GVA,  PELVIS." 

We  are  ready  to  admit  that  in  qu  there  was  a  some- 
what closer  union  ("  fusion ")  of  the  two  elements  than 
was  the  case  in  gu,  or  su.  But  further,  there  is  a  state- 
ment of  Priscian,  quoted  by  Corssen  (Aussp.  I,  p.  37), 
which  indicates  his  belief  that  the  w  of  qu  becomes  more 
or  less  influenced  (assimilated)  by  the  following  vowel. 
It  may  be  taken  for  what  it  is  worth  :  u  autem  quamvis 
contractum,  eundem  tamen  [hoc  est  y]  sonum  habet  inter 
q  Qt  c  vel  i  yel  ce  diphthongum  positum,  ut  "  que,  qum^^ 
nee  non  inter  g  et  easdem  vocales,  cum  in  una  syllaba  sic 
invenitur,  ut  'pingue,  sanguis,  lingucB^  This  places  the 
u  of  qui,  quae,  etc.,  in  precisely  the  same  category  with 
the  u  of  pingue,  linguae,  etc.,  and  further  attributes  to 
the  u,  when  followed  by  the  i  and  e  sounds,  a  character 
somewhat  accommodated  to  the  same :  that  is,  the  u  of  qui 
and  of  lingucB  are  here  contemplated  as  having  a  sound 
like  u  in  the  French  etui,  while  before  a  and  o  (quo, 
linguam)  the  sound  would  be  that  of  French  ou  in 
Edouard, 

In  the  following  extract  from  Q.  Terent.  Scaurus  (ap. 
P.  p.  2261)  there  is  more  than  we  have  space  to  develop. 
We  quote  it  for  its  bearing  upon  the  points  already 
made : 

Quis  quidam  per  cuis  scribunt,  quoniam  supervacuam 


<h* 


r  R  0  X  ri:  CI  A  T 1 0  N   or   l  a  t  i  x. 


47 


esse  Q  literam  putent ;  sed  nos  cum  ilia  {i.  e.  Q)  V  literam 
et  S  [^.  e.  su,  as  in  suetus],  quando  tertia  ab  ea  vocalis 
ponitur,  consentire  jam  demonstravimus ;  C  autem  in 
dativo  ponemus  ut  sit  differentia,  cui  et  Qui,  id  est  dativi 
et  vocativi  singularis  ctt. 

Beda,  de  Orthogr.,  ap.  P.  p.  2332  :  Coquus,  coqui,  prima 
syllaba  per  C,  secunda  per  q  scribenda  est  [as  in  the 
above  quotation,  q  is  supposed  to  involve  hy  implica- 
tion the  after  sound  o/u] ;  non  enim  dicimus  Quo- 
QUERE,  sed  CoQUERE,    Of.  Aul.  Gell.  X,  11,  §  9. 

It  remains  to  compare  the  Greek  equivalents  for  Qu  ; 
among  which  we  find  : 


KovaSoc 

for 

Quadi, 

TopKovarog 

a 

Torquatus, 

^rjKovavoL 

a 

Sequani, 

Koviplvog 

i( 

Quirinus, 

d^pEfcovivreg 

66 

obsequentes ; 

also, 

KoivTog 

for 

Quintus, 

Koadoi 

66 

Quadi, 

ItTJKOaVOL 

66 

Sequani ; 

and,  before  ^, 

KvpXvog 

for 

Quirinus, 

TapKvvia 

66 

Tarquinia, 

'AKvXag 

66 

Aquila, 

Kvpireg 

66 

Quirites. 

^p 


All  these  point  directly  to  the  sound  of  English  lo,  for 
that  of  u  in  qu,  except  the  last  case,  viz :   kv  for  qui : 


48 


PKONCNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


49 


and  this  seems  to  g.ve  evidence  of  an  extreme  attenuation 
of  the  u  of  qu  when  followed  by  i.  If  KvpXv.,  alone 
were  found  this  would  indicate  Kyrlnus  as  the  sound" 
Qumnus;  but  when  we  find  in  the  same  author  (Strabo), 
both  Kvp,v,oc  and  Kmjplvo,  (Oorssen's  Aussp.,  I,  p.  37)  we 
are  forced  even  here  to  strike  a  mean,  and  to  a  sume Me 

hat  of  French  uvacuir.    The  fairest  inference,  then, 

which  can  be  drawn  from  this  fluctuation  of  Greek  ren 

dermgs,  is  that  practically  the  force  of  u  in  qu  wa.  often 

ost  be  ore  leaving  its  trace  only  in  the  Ltn^ction  of 

the  following  .  towards  the  u  sound;  but  that  often  also 

efinrdrth!  r "  "^  "'^*"^'  -  ^°-^'  —hi: 

refaned  by  the  mfluence  and  in  the  direction  of  the  sub- 
sequent vowel.  And  here,  therefore,  so  far  as  this  Z 
dence  is  concerned,  we  shall  have  to  suppose  an  irregu- 

can  L  /™'T''*""  ^"'"»  ^-ery  narrow  limits  which 
can  no  longer  be  precisely  ascertained.  For  our  own 
practice  there  is  no  other  resort  than  the  employment  of 
the  normal  sound.  ^ 

that^in  Win  t  '"'^  '"  '"°  '^^'  '''''''''''  ^  -f-' 
that  in  Latin  the  consonant  V  sounded  like  English  V 

when  It  began  a  word  or  a  syllable  (unless  in  combLtion 

with  preceding  .,  ^,  or  q).    When,  after  .,  ^,  and  ,  i^ 

began  a  syllable,  the  intonation  of  the  vowe    «  was  m 

Ja  ly  supplied  to  it,  yielding  a  sound  like  EngSh'"' 

After  .  and  ^,  the  u  was  sometimes  lost ;  and  after  Tth" 

ex^ptir  :r  Z"'"*^""^  *'^  ^^^^'  ^"'>-^'''  -«' « 

whTch  the       I         ""'''  *''  P"^*'^*^'^'-  "-*--«  in 
Id   tfi  d.^  Their'^^"'  '-''''''  '^^^  ''  -^^^-'^y 


Validus,  seruus,  uulgus,  sounded  Validus,  servus,  vulgus 

(comp.  Eng.  Valid), 
Suavis,  suesco,  "         Swavis,  sivesco 

(comp.  Eng.  Sweet). 
Ungwentum,  lingiva 
(comp.  Eng.  Unguent), 
Questio,  relinquo,  quamquam,  "      Qwestio,  relinqwo,  qwam- 

[qwam  (comp.  Eng.  Question), 


Unguentum,  lingua, 


a 


During  the  classical  age  the  vowel  Y  was  not  theo- 
retically (in  strictness  not  even  actually)  a  member  of 
the  Latin  alphabet.  Cicero  (Nat.  Deor.,  II,  c.  37)  admits 
twenty-one  letters  only  in  the  Roman  list. 

The  poet  Attius  made  no  use  at  all  of  Y  in  his  writ- 
ings, according  to  the  testimony  of  Marius  Victorinus 
(p.  2456) :  Accius — nee  z  literam  nee  y  in  libro  suo 
retulit.  Shortly  after  the  time  of  Attius,  however,  the 
foreign  sign  Avas  commonly  adopted  for  the  more  perfect 
writing  of  foreign  words.  Cicero  alludes  to  this  practice 
as  modern  in  his  day.    Orat,  c.  48 :   Burrum,  semper 

Ennius,  nunquam  Pyrrhum :  Bruges  non  Phryges 

Nee  enim  (antiqui)  Graecam  literam  adhibebant;  nunc 
autem  etiam  duas.  Yet  the  Y  was  not  admitted  to  a 
place  in  Latin  words,  and  Quintilian  (XII,  10,  27)  still 
treats  it  expressly  as  a  foreign  element :  .  .  .  .  incundis- 
simas  ex  Graecis  litteras  non  hahemus,  vocalem  alteram 
alteram  consonantem  ....  ut  in  Epliyris  et  Zephyris, 

Accordingly,  in  a  systematic  treatment  of  Latin  letters 
3 


t\ 


50 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


the  Y  can  claim  no  place.  Still,  for  practical  purposes, 
we  require  to  know  how  the  Romans  rendered  that  ele- 
ment of  Greek  words,  employed  by  them,  which  they 
represented  by  this  sign. 

In  order  to  this,  it  will  be  enough  to  present  the  fol- 
lowing brief  considerations. 

Latin  Y,  it  must  be  repeated,  was  not  merely  some- 
thino-  nice  the  Greek  T,  but  was  understood,  was  designed, 
to  represent  that  very  sound  itself.    (See  Quint.  I.  I.) 

Now  Greek  T  was  sometimes  rendered  into  Latin  by 
TJ:  (Bruges,  Burrus,  Eurudica),  It  was  also  at  the 
same  time  (later  far  oftener)  represented  by  I :  (Stigio 
for  "Lrvyiid,  Sisipus  for  ^iav(t)og,  etc.).  It  would  there- 
fore seem  to  have  had  a  sound  between  that  of  Latin  IT 
and  Latin  I.  Now  we  know  that  a  middle,  uncertain 
sound  of  this  sort  was  very  familiar  to  the  Latin  speech  ; 
and  the  final  proof  that  the  Y  represented  precisely  or 
nearly  precisely  that  sound  is  found  in  direct  statements 
of  gi'ammarians  to  that  eifect,  as  thus : 

Mar.  Victor.  (P.  p.  2465) :  Sunt  qui  inter  u  quoque  et  i 
literas  supputant  deesse  nobis  voces  (?),  sed  pinguius 
quam  i,  exilius  quam  u;  sed  (pace  eorum  dixerim)  non 
vident  y  literam  desiderari  ;  ....  Priscian,  speaking  of 
the  same  sound,  upon  the  testimony  of  Donatus,  says 
(P.  p.  539),  sonum  y  graecae  videtur  habere.  An  interest- 
ing confirmation  of  the  same  is  found  in  certain  forms 
reported  from  inscriptions  of  the  time  of  the  Emperor 
Claudius,  which  show  T  represented  by  the  sign  invented 
by  that  Emperor  for  the  sound  in  question :  as,  Mg  V  pti, 
Che  nus  for  ^gypti,  cycnus,  and  others. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  the  souud  given  to 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


51 


Y  by  the  Romans  was  between  u  and  i,  that  is,  the  sound 
of  French  u  or  German  u — the  German  ii  more  particu- 
larly perhaps,  since  that  is  more  subject  to  be  sounded 
like  pure  I,  which  was  the  most  frequent  corruption  of  Y 
in  Latin. 


DIPHTHONGS. 

A  diphthong  is  the  sound  resulting  from  an  effort 
to  pronounce  two  vowels,  the  one  after  the  other,  at  one 
breath.  The  sound,  therefore,  of  a  diphthong  is  a  unit, 
but  begins  while  the  organs  of  the  vocal  tube  are  set  for 
the  sound  of  one  vowel,  and  does  not  end  until  after 
those  organs  have  assumed  the  attitude  necessary  for 
rendering  another.  And  further,  as  meanwhile  the  breath 
must  not  be  suspended  or  interrupted,  the  resulting 
sound  will  also  necessarily  be  modified  by  the  intermediate 
transitory  conformation  of  the  vocal  tube  during  the 
change. 

This  is  the  sense  in  which  it  is  necessary  to  receive  the 
old  definition  of  diphthong,  as  given  e,  g.  by  Terent. 
Maurus  (P.  p.  2392) : 

"  Diphthongos  eas 

Graeci  dicunt  magistri,  quod  duae  junctaB  simul 

Syllabam  sonant  in  unam." 

(Cf.  Priscian,  P.  p.  561.) 

Upon  the  failure  of  any  of  the  conditions  named,  the 
diphthong  also  essentially  fails ;  and  we  may  get  in  its 
stead,  the  sound  of  a  vowel  and  a  consonant,  as  aj  (pro- 


r 


h% 


PRONUNCIATION  OF  LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION  OF  LATIN. 


53 


nounced  ay)  for  ai,  or  two  vowels,  as  ai  (pronounced  a-ee) 
for  -ai  {auldi),  or  one  long  vowel,  as  Pretor  for  PrcBtor, 
usus  for  oisus. 

The  Latin  language  was  once  very  rich  in  diphthongs, 
but  gradually  surrendered  them  by  yielding  to  the  im- 
perfections which  have  just  been  pointed  out ;  until  the 
only  diphthongs  recognized  by  ancient  grammarians  as 
heard  in  the  classical  age  were  four,  viz. :  cb,  au,  eu,  and  ce. 
Some  admit  ei,  but  allow  it  to  be  a  diphthong  only  in  a 
very  few  cases  ["  ista  rarior  Diphthongus  EI ;"  Ter. 
Maur.,  p.  2393],  while  others  distinctly  reject  it,  as 
Diomedes :  "  Ex  his  Diphthongus  EI ;  cum  apud  veteres 
frequentaretur,  usu  posteritatis  explosa  est."  And  fur- 
thermore, we  shall  find  good  reason  to  distrust  the 
integrity  of  some  of  the  admitted  four.  The  most  of 
them,  indeed,  nearly  succumbed  to  a  corruption,  which 
none  of  them  entirely  escaped.  There  are  fluctuations 
here,  which  fall  within  the  classic  period,  and  which  do 
not  square  with  that  theory  of  beautiful  uniformity  and 
consistency  which  some  have  been  satisfied  to  assume  for 
the  Latin  pronunciation.  This  must  now  be  made  to 
appear  by  a  particular  examination.  But  first,  a  few  of 
the  statements  of  grammarians,  as  to  the  number  and 
kind  of  diphthongs  in  the  classical  Latin. 

Terent.  Maurus  (P.  p.  2392) : 

"  Porro  Diphthongos  Latini  quatuor  fixas  habent. 
Quatuor  ideo  separavi,  quinta  quod  sit  rarior." 

Priscianus  (P.  p.  561) :  Sunt  igitur  vocales  praepositivae 
aliis  vocalibus  subsequentibus  in  eisdem  syllabis  :  a,  e, 
oj  subjunctivae :  e,  u,  ut  cb,  au,  eu,  ce.   /quoque  apud 


antiques  post  e  ponebatur,  et  ei  Dipthongum  facie- 
bat,  quam  pro  omni  i  longa  scribebant  more  antique 

Grsecorum Sunt  igitur  Diphthongi,  quibus 

nunc  utimur,  quatuor. 

Diomed.  (P.  p.  422) :  Cum  ....  du89  vocales  jungun- 
tur,  ut  (B,  au,  eu,  ce,  ei,  yi.  Ex  his  Diphthongus  ei ; 
cum  apud  veteres  frequentaretur,  usu  posteritatis 
explosa  est.    Item  yi  graeca  potius,  quam  latina  est. 

The  use  of  ei  for  I  (as  mentioned  by  Priscian),  was 
condemned  already  in  Cicero's  time  by  Nigidius, 
ap.  Aul.  Gell.  N.  A.,  XIX,  14,  8  :  Graecos  non  tantas 
inscitiaG  arcesso,  qui  ov  ex  o  et  v  scripserunt,  quantae 
nostri  fuerunt,  qui  {e)i  ex  e  et  i:  illud  enim  inopia 
fecerunt,  hoc  nulla  re  subacti. 


Upon  consultation  of  the  organs  of  speech,  it  seems 
likely  that  the  sound  of  cb  would  lie  between  that  of  the 
diphthong  ai  and  that  of  one  of  the  simple  elements  a 
or  e.  Accordingly,  in  that  well  ascertained  progression 
which  the  Latin  made  in  the  diminution  of  its  vowel 
sounds,  we  find  this  regular  descent:  Caisar,  Ccesar, 
Cesar  ;  praifedus,  prcefectus,  prefecius  ;  quaistor,  qucedor, 
questor.  On  the  testimony  of  those  who  have  access  to 
the  careful  reports  which  have  been  made  of  Latin 
inscriptions,  we  know  that  forms  like  these  belong 
respectively  to  the  ante-classic,  the  classic,  and  the  post- 


r 


^4 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


55 


classic  periods.*  The  first  transition,  that  of  ai  to  cb,  is 
in  entire  conformity  with  the  statements  of  the  ancient 
grammarians,  who  represent  the  change  as  so  far  com- 
plete in  the  cultivated  age  of  Latin  literature  that  every 
instance  of  ai  employed  in  that  period  was  to  be  regarded 
merely  as  a  vestige  of  antiquity. 

Quint.  I,  7,  §  18 :  yH  syllabam,  cuius  secundam  nunc 
E  litteram  ponimus,  varie  per  ^  et  /  efferebant ;  qui- 
dam  semper  ut  Gra}ci,  quidam  singulariter  tantum, 
cum  in  dativum  vel  genitivum  casum  incidissent, 
unde  'pidai  vesHs  et  aquai  Vergilius  amantissimus 
vetustatis  carminibus  inseruit.  In  iisdem  plurali  f 
numero  E  utebantur,  hi  Syll(B,  Galhm. 

But  the  further  transition,  that  namely  of  cb  into  e 
is  equally  manifest  from  inscriptions  on  which  are  found : 
from  the  first  century  after  Christ,  Lelio  for  Lwlio,  prime 
for  primce  (genitive  singular) ;  from  the  second  century, 
condite  (dative  singular) ;  from  the  third  century,  aque, 
patrie,  for  aquce,  etc.  (genitive  singular) ;  from  the  fourth 
century,  que  for  qum  (nominative  singular),  and  many 
others.  Of  course  the  change  of  sound  which  preceded 
these  changes  in  orthography  must  have  been  more  or 
less  gradual,  and  for  a  time  it  may  have  been  hard  for 
the  ear  to  decide  whether  the  sound  heard  was  one  which 
would  be  more  truly  represented  by  m  or  by  e.  Such  a 
complete  uncertainty  is  shown  by  inscriptions  of  the 
third  century  after  Christ,  on  which  are  found  such 
remarkable  forms  written  together  as : 

*  See  Corssen's  Aussp  ,  I,  p.  178. 

f  Corssen  shows  from  inscriptions  that  or  was  frequent  in  the 
plural  before  it  was  common  in  the  singular,  for  ai. 


Dative. 
bonae  femine, 
Impiae  Juste, 
Fructuose  filise, 

As  well  also  as  the  e  alone,  as : 

Dative. 
Julie  felicissime, 
Tulliane  Marcelle, 
mee  pudicissime, 


Genitive. 
mire  sapientiae, 
vitae  nostre, 
Coccejae  Severe, 

Genitive. 
Bancte  memorie, 
vite  sue, 
benignissime  femine. 


How  thorough  was,  in  later  times,  the  prevalence  of 
the  e  sound  in  place  of  the  Latin  m,  scarcely  need  be 
mentioned ;  and  no  more  convincing  proof  of  it  can  be 
given  than  the  frequent  occurrence  in  the  copied  MSS. 
of  ancient  authors  which  have  reached  us  of  a  mistake 
by  which  ce  is  written  where  e  properly  belongs ;  as,  e.  g., 
sjjrwtorum  for  spretorum,* 

The  principal  question  for  us,  therefore,  is :  when  did 
that  sound  which  in  classical  Latin  is  represented  by  m  cease 
to  be  spoken  like  ai,  and  when  did  it  begin  to  be  undis- 
tinguishable  from  the  sound  of  e  9  The  most  satisfactory 
of  the  approximate  answers  possible  to  this  question,  will 
be  found  by  consulting  the  varying  orthography  of  the 
monumental  records  of  the  language  according  to  its 
different  periods.  Those  records  are  beyond  our  reach, 
but  all  who  will  consult  Corssen's  elaborate  comparison 
of  the  forms  which  he  has  drawn  from  that  instructive 
source,  will  be  ready  to  accept  his  conclusion,  that  the 

*  So  in  the  Cd.  Puteanus  (eighth  century)  of  Livy,  XXI,  63. 
Vid.  Fabri  ad  loc,  cf.  aesculus,  esculus,  caella,  cella,  cena,  caena, 
Cffispes,  cespes,  ssBCulum,  seculum. 


I- 

!  I 


56 


PKOXUNCIATIOI^     OF     LATIN. 


if 


testimony  of  inscriptions  is  about  the  following:  "As 
early  as  the  Syrian  war  (say  B.C.  190),  the  sound  ai  was 
giving  way  to  that  of  ce,  and  this  sound  prevailed  uni-  \ 
versally  after  about  the  time  of  the  Gracchi  (say  B.C.  130). 
But  already  in  ancient  times  (b  (at  least  by  the  vulgar) 
was  frequently  sounded  like  e,  and  from  the  earliest 
times  of  the  Empire  this  e  for  cb  was  heard  in  the  mouths 
of  the  cultivated;  and,  gaining  in  use  and  favor,  hy 
about  the  third  century  a.d.  this  was  the  exclusive  sound 
of  that  sign" 

The  first  part  of  this  testimony,  I  e.,  the  abandonment 
of  the  sound  as  well  as  the  form  ai  before  the  classical 
age,  is  affirmed  also,  directly  and  indirectly,  by  Quintilian 
and  the  grammarians.  Thus  Quintilian  (as  we  have  seen 
above)  says:  "The  syllable  which  we  now  make  m  they 
(/.  e.,  the  ancients)  used  to  pronounce  (N.B.,  not  only 
write !)  «i— some  invariably,  others  only  in  the  genitive 
and  dative  singular."  *  And  Virgil's  use  of  pictai,  aulai, 
he  ascribes  to  the  Poet's  love  for  the  antique.  Compare 
also  Priscian,  P.  p.  728.f 

The  sound  of  iv,  therefore,  was  7iot  that  of  ai.  But 
before  the  bloom  of  the  Latin  literature  was  passed,  it 

*  This,  in  order  to  distinguish  the  singular  forms  in  (b  (ai)  from 
the  nominative  plural,  as  appears  also  in  a  similar  but  slightly  dif- 
ferent  rule  laid  down  by  Nigidius  (ap.  Gell.  XIII,  26).  The 
inscriptions,  however,  show  that  these  rules  were  not  observed  in 
practice. 

t  In  the  face  of  these  statements,  and  in  spite  of  all  the  evidence 
of  a  changed  orthography,  Prof,  Richardson  (Roman  Ortkoepi/ 
N.  Y.,  1859)  lays  down  the  law,-JS  (=  AI)  sounds  like  ay,  the 
English  adverb  of  affirmation."  Will  he  render  Virgil's  ^cbcb 
after  this  fashion?  (Vid.  ^neid.  III,  386.)  And  with  his  gu  =  k, 
will  he  read  Infemike  lacus  Ayayayie  insula  \\\xkayf 


PKOKUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


57 


was  to  a  very  large  extent  confounded  with  the  e  sound, 
with  which  it  was  soon  after  entirely  identified.    That  in 
the  early  classic  period,  however,  there  was  a  separate 
sound  for  or,  at  least  in  the  city  of  Kome,  may  be  seen 
from  Varro  de  L.  L.,  VII,  96:   "In  pluribus  verbis  A 
ante  E  alii  ponunt,  alii  non  .  .  .  .  ac  rustic!  Pappum 
Mesium  non  Mcesium"    Again,  Lib.  4,  c.  9 :  " In  latino 
rure  Hedus,  quod  in  Urbe,  ut  in  multis,  A  addito, 
H^DUS.    It  is  important  to  notice  the  terms  of  these 
statements.    When  taken  together  with  what  we  know 
of  the  history  of  this  diphthong,  they  seem  to  point  us  to 
the  characteristic  sound  of  which  we  are  in  search.    This 
was  the  sound  which  very  soon  was  e  in  everybody's 
mouth ;  but  now  (in  Varro's  time),  at  least  with  the  city 
people,  it  was  e  " with  an  a  sound  before  it" *    The  two 
elements  are  not  spoken  of  as  though  they  were  of  equal 
importance.    The  e  evidently  has  the  most  weight  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer.     The  e  being  already  there,  as  it 
were,  "  the  a  is  put  in  before  it  by  some."    Haedus  is 
Hedus  "  with  an  a  added."    It  can  hardly  be  doubted 
that  the  sound  so  described  was  that  of  ae'  and  not  de: 
ae  could  hardly  be  distinguished  in  practice  from  the 
old  ai,  while  de'  is  on  the  high  road  to  e — just  what  the 
history  of  the  sound  demands.     For  the  earlier  part  of 
the  classical  period,  therefore,  we  infer  that  the  sound  of 
(B  was  that  of  ai  in  French  raison,  while  before  the  end 
of  the  classical  period,  it  is  certain  that  the  fine  distinc- 
tion between  that  sound  and  the  sound  of  the  simple 
vowel  e  was  to  a  great  extent  ignored,  and  soon  after 
became  extinct,  f 


*  See  Appendix,  Note  B. 


f  See  Appendix,  Note  C. 


f  ■ 
r 


I* 


58 


PBONUl^CIATION     OF     LATIN. 


Ilii 


AV,  the  diphthong  fullest  of  tone,  was  the  only  one 
of  the  Latin  diphthongs  which  maintained  its  integrity 
throughout  the  period  when  good  Latin  was  spoken. 
The  natural  sound  of  a  combination  of  a  and  w,  if  the 
first  element  be  given  with  stress,  is  just  that  of  English 
ow  in  now,  or  ou  in  flour.  And  the  records  of  the  lan- 
guage, the  comparison  of  the  Greek,  the  tradition  of 
scholars,  and  the  absence  of  important  adverse  evidence 
all  conspire  to  confirm  the  probability  of  this  as  the  true 
sound  of  au, 

1.  The  written  sign  AV,  is  said  to  be  very  abundantly 
found  in  Latin  inscriptions,  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest 
period. 

2.  The  Greek  rendering  of  au  may  be  seen  in  KXavdtog, 
fPavoTvXog  (Strab.),  KvXipKLoi  (Latin  Aulerci) ;  while  the 
Latin  renders  the  Greek  av  by  au  in  Aulis,  auloedus, 
Aiiletes,  etc.,  etc. 

3.  The  diphthong  au  was  not  entirely  exempt  from  the 
influence  of  the  general  devocalizing  tendency  of  the 
Latin,  and  from  the  time  of  the  earliest  records  onward 
(through  the  classic  period  and  afterward),  it  was  not 
unfrequently  reduced  very  nearly,  if  not  quite,  to  the 
simple  sound  of  its  second  element,  or  to  that  of  the 
cognate  vowel  o.*  The  first  {L  e.,  the  change  to  u)  could 
be  effected  by  removing  the  stress  of  utterance  to  the 
second  element  {aii  instead  of  du),  which  would  leave  the 
first  an  easy  prey  to  neglect  or  assimilation.    The  second 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  D. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


59 


change  involved  a  further  departure,  the  substitution, 
namely,  of  kindred  o  for  w,  and  the  assimilation  of  the  «, 
as  in  the  first  case,  thus ;  du,  do,  ao,  o.*  But  whatever 
the  mode,  the  facts  are : 

{u  for  au) 

for 


rudus 

adrudus 

defrudo 

frudavi 

cludo 


u 


with 

it 


it 


raudus, 
(adraudus), 
fraudo, 
fraudavi, 
claudo ; 


Pola 
Plotus 
dehorito 
plodo 


for 


(o  for  au) 
Paula, 


^,     .         >  (ante'Classic.) 
Plautus,    ) 

dehaurito,  (Cato.) 

plaudo,  ( Cicero.) 

clodicat  as  well  as  claudicat,  " 

plostra        for  plaustra;  {Suet.  Vesp.  22,) 


t( 


And  in  the  fifth  century,  A.D.,  when  Diomedes  wrote, 

clostra  was  heard  as  well  as  claustra, 
coda       "       "       "      "      "  Cauda, 

For  the  interpretation  of  these  facts,  it  must  be  re- 
marked first,  that  the  change  into  u  was  very  rare.  And 
those  few  cases  in  which  this  sound  was  heard  as  a 
representative  of  earlier  au,  so  far  as  they  have  any  bear- 
ing upon  the  general  sound  of  the  diphthong  in  question, 
imply  the  probability  of  English  oiv  as  that  sound.    Thus 

*  Gniter  (quoted  by  Corssen,  I,  p.  168)  reports  Aordius  from  a 
very  ancient  tablet  found  at  Spoletum. 


GO 


PRONUNCIATION^     OF     LATIN. 


cldudo  (du  =  English  oiv)  need  only  be  sounded  claudo 
with  no  change  in  the  quality  of  the  vowel  sounds,  and 
the  result  is  already  almost  identical  with  cludo. 

The  number  of  eases  in  which  o  appears  for  au  is  very 
much  more  considerable;  but  still,  in  mere  point  of 
numbers,  these  instances  are  not  sufficient  to  warrant  the 
belief  of  anything  like  a  generally  prevailing  confusion 
of  the  sounds  of  o  and  au — a  confusion  which  some 
modern  scholars  have  been  too  prone  to  assume.  The 
conclusion  thus  stated  may  be  defended  by  argument ; 
but  we  happen  to  possess  an  anecdote  told  *by  Suetonius 
(Vit.  Vesp.  c.  22),  which  settles  beyond  dispute  that  in 
the  time  of  Vespasian,  at  least,  there  was  a  clear  difference 
hQtwQQii  2)lau  sir  a  smd  plosfra,  Florus  and  Flaurus.  The 
emperor,  who  was  rebuked  by  his  courtier  for  saying 
Idlostra,  is  characterized  by  the  historian,  just  before  and 
in  the  same  immediate  connection,  as  being  fond  of  low 
expressions.  There  are  other  indications  also,*  that  o 
for  au  was  in  most  cases  a  vulgarism,  and  without  the 
sanction  of  the  learned.  We  may  therefore  safely  believe, 
that  not  only  properly  but  actually  as  a  general  rule 
among  the  educated,  au  had  its  O'wn  sound,  L  e, 

AV  sounded  like  ou  in  English  cloud. 

In  many  instances  among  the  people,  and  in  some  also 
in  the  practice  of  the  cultivated  classes,  au  was  allowed 
through  carelessness,  or  for  some  other  reason,  to  sink 
into  the  sound  of  o  (may-be  a  little  thicker  than  the 
common  of).  In  these  cases  the  orthography  accom- 
modated itself  to  the  change ;  and  we  have  now  no  right 

*  See  Corssen's  Aussp.,  I,  p.  167. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


61 


to  suppose  that  any  word  which  we  find  written  with  au 
was  sounded  with  o. 


CE. 

The*  sign  (E  is  representative  of  the  most  unstable, 
and  therefore  the  most  uncertain  of  all  the  Latin  vowel 
sounds.  If  it  only  marked  one  stage  of  the  descent  oi, 
ce,  e,  we  might  surely  infer  at  least  a  close  approximation 
to  its  sound,  as  we  do  for  that  of  cb  in  the  scale  ai,  cb,  e. 
But  the  old  Latin  oi  descended  through  os  in  three  direc- 
tions, namely  to  u,  to  l,  and  to  e  (or  cb).    Thus : 


also. 


(while  the  cases  ending  in  -i  of  stems  in  o,  have  in  this 
i  the  remains  of  former  -oi,  as  populi  for  pojmloi,  Roniani 
for  Bomanoi.  The  intervening  form  (b  is  said  to  appear 
in  a  few  accidentally  preserved  ancient  instances,  as 
Pilumnoe,  poploe,  nominative  plural) ; 


and, 


r 


moiros,        pomoenum,      pomenum, 

rroLvri,  poena,  paenitet  (and  poenitet), 


h 


'f 


OlSUS, 

oesus, 

usus, 

r 

coiravit, 

coeravit, 

curavit, 

I 

ploira. 

ploera, 

plura, 

J 

TTOLVTjy 

poena. 

punire,  etc. ; 

1 

foidus. 

foedus, 

fidus. 

' 

ohog, 

vicus, 

quoi, 

cui. 

M 


62 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


coena, 
obsccenus, 
Coelius, 
coeteri. 


caena  (and  cena,  Cato  and  Ter.), 

obscsenus  (and  obscenus), 

Caelius, 

caeteri  (and  ceteri),  etc. 


From  these  obseryations  we  should  be  obliged  to 
infer  that  the  sound  of  ce  diverged  from  that  of  oi  in  at 
least  three  different  ways.  And  when  now  we  turn  to 
inquire  in  what  order  of  time  those  various  forms  of 
orthography  prevailed,  and  to  what  extent  respectively, 
we  find  in  Corssen's  exhibition  drawn  from  inscriptions, 

1.  That  oi  (having  begun  from  the  earliest  times  to 
give  way  to  (b)  had  ceased  entirely  to  be  written  before 
the  classical  period. 

2.  That  from  an  early  period  i  was,  collaterally  with  oe, 
a  substitute  for  earlier  oi  in  the  terminations  of  cases  of 
nouns.  (In  this  place  m  gave  way  entirely  to  i  in  the 
classical  period.) 

3.  That  from  the  time  of  Plautus  on,  od  in  the  stems 
of  words  gave  way  to  w,  loliich  became  the  'prevailing  ortho- 
graphy after  the  time  of  the  Gracchi  and  through  the 
classical  age,  ■ 

4.  The  few  words  which  during  this  time  retained  the 
written  form  ce  were  pronounced  by  the  later  Latins  with 
an  c.* 

The  most  positive  inference,  which  we  seem  entitled 
to  draw  from  such  evidence,  is,  that  along  with  the  sign 
of  oi,  the  sound  also  of  that  diphthong  had  disappeared 
from  the  Latin  before  the  classical  age.  And  the  pro- 
posal, therefore,  of  some  modern  scholars  to  return  to 


*  See  Corssen,  I,  p.  207. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


63 


that  antiquated  sound  for  oe  is  not  only  in  conflict  with 
the  broadly  marked  general  tendency  of  the  Latin  towards 
a  reduction  of  its  diphthongal  sounds,  but  singularly  at 
variance  with  the  particular  history  of  the  diphthong  ce. 
The  zeal  of  reform  has  impelled  some  to  deny  the  exist- 
ence of  any  irregularity  or  obscurity  in  the  Latin  pro- 
nunciation :  but  these  cannot  help  us  here ;  nor  can  we 
adopt  any  such  adventurous  dogma  as  prescribes  for  our 
practice  a  sound  which  was  obsolete  for  Cicero. 

There  is  certainly  a  consolation  for  our  ignorance  in 
the  belief  that  the  Romans  themselves  did  not  know  for 
any  length  of  time  together  a  certain  sound  for  this 
diphthong.  And  if  now  it  be  thought  necessary  for  us 
to  fix  some  uniform  sound,  by  which  in  our  practice  to 
render  those  words  which,  in  printed  texts  furnished  us, 
appear  written  with  the  sign  ce,  we  must  choose  between 
the  sound  of  e,  as  in  Latin  fetus,  French  pretre,  or  that 
of  German  oe  (p)  in  Goethe.  The  first  of  these  sounds  is 
recommended : 

1.  By  considerations  of  convenience,  chiefly  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  in  almost  every  instance  (except,  namely,  in 
the  word  ccetus  and  possibly  a  few  others)  the  words 
which  are  spelled  in  our  texts  sometimes  with  ce,  are  also 
frequently  (some  as  frequently)  found  with  m,  as :  ohscce- 
nus,  obsccenus,  and  even  obscenus  (French  obscene); 
pcejiitet,  pcenitet ;  moeror,  moeror,  etc.,  etc. 

2.  Where  better  reasons  fail,  the  authority  of  the  post- 
classic  Latin  deserves  to  be  heard ;  and  this  speaks  for  e. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  general  turn  taken  by  ce  into  u 
in  the  practice  of  the  cultivated  Romans  of  the  classical 
period,  establishes  a  good  degree  of  probability  for  the 
prevalence  at  that  time  among  the  educated  of  a  sound, 


if. 


64 


PRONUKCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


which  conjecture  can  represent  no  better  than  by  that 
which  the  German  scholars  have  adopted;  the  sound, 
namely,  of  their  own  «?— [nearly  the  French  eu  mfleur].* 

Thus  the  ce  in  j^rosliiim  would  sound  nearly  like 

0  in  English  ivorld  or 


(( 


a 


whirL 


"  The  diphthong  eu,  if  we  except  Greek  words,  occurs 
only  in  heus,  Jieu,  and  eheu,  in  ceu,  seu,  and  neu,  and  in 
neuter  and  neutiquamJ'  (Zumpt,  Lai  Gr.  p.  1.)  The 
orthography  of  these  words  was  uniform,  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  integrity  of  this  diphthong 
was  ever  disturbed  except  by  the  license  of  poetry — it 
being  rendered  sometimes  in  verse  by  diaeresis,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  Servius  ad.  ^n.  II,  69.  "  Heu  modo 
est  una  syllaba,  sed  interdum  propter  metrum  duae  sunt, 
ut.est:  Heu  I  quam  pingui,  etc.''  Supposing,  then, 
both  elements  to  be  heard,  as  is  necessary  for  a  true 
diphthong  (nam  singulae  vocales  suas  voces  habent; 
Priscian,  P.  p.  561),  it  becomes  only  further  necessary  to 
know  which  element  has  the  stress.  There  is  no  other 
Latin  diphthong  in  which  the  stress  does  not  associate 
itself  by  preference  either  with  one  or  the  other  of  the 
two  combined  constituents,  and  upon  the  selection  thus 
made  depends  the  principal  coloring  of  the  sound.    Now 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  E. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


65 


we  know  of  no  case  in  which  Latin  eu  has  passed  into  e, 
but  some  instances  are  reported  from  the  early  Latin 
containing  eu  which  was  afterwards  heard  as  w.  Such 
forms  are  Leucesie  (Carm.  Sal.),  Teurano  (Sc.  d.  Baccan.), 
and  others.  This  appearance  argues  in  favor  of  the  pre- 
dominance of  the  latter  element,  which  is  also  after  the 
analogy  of  m  and  ce.  We  infer,  therefore,  that  Latin  eu 
had  the  sound  in  perfect  conformity  with  its  simple  ele- 
ments, with  the  stress  on  the  last.  This  is  the  sound  of 
English  ew  in  few,  jpew,  etc. 


CONSONANTS. 

Having  found  it  convenient  to  consider  the  vowel 
sounds  separately,  we  pass  now  to  the  remaining  charac- 
ters of  the  Latin  alphabet.  In  a  systematic  view  of  these 
elements  it  would  be  necessary  to  divide  them  into  sev- 
eral classes  according  to  the  organs  (or  parts  of  organs) 
chiefly  engaged  in  their  utterance :  but  for  our  present 
purpose,  which  is  special  and  particular,  it  will  be  best, 
not  indeed  to  forget  the  nature  and  power  of  letters 
which  is  shown  by  the  science  of  Phonetics,  but  to 
keep  a  limited  inquiry  of  this  nature  free  from  the 
embarrassing  admixture  of  general  considerations.  The 
letters  which  remain  to  be  treated  of,  therefore,  we  shall 
consider  under  the  one  category  of  Consonants  (among 
which  the  breathing  h  also  will  be  admitted  to  a  place) ; 
and  take  them  up  in  the  common  order  of  the  alphabet. 


66 


PBONUNCIATION     OF     LATIK. 


There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Latin  B  was 
the  same  with  our  own.  The  English  h — the  "soft 
check"  of  the  lips — described  by  M.  Miiller  (Lee.  2d 
Ser.,  p.  156),  will  be  found  to  suit,  as  no  other  consonant 
loill,  the  description  of  the  Latin  h,  as  given  by  Marius 

Victorinus  (P.  p.  2454) :   B  et  P  literae dispari  inter 

se  officio  exprimuntur ;  nam  prima  [B],  exploso  e  mediis 
labris  sono ;  sequens  [P],  compresso  ore,  velut  introrsum 
attracto  vocis  ictu,  explicantur. 

Our  b  (a  compromise  between  the  labial  hard  check 
and  the  labial  breathing)  stands  half-way  between  p, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  v,  on  the  other.  Precisely  the 
same  was  true  of  the  Latin  b  ;  as  is  plainly  shown  by  the 
interchange  now  of  b  and  p,  and  now  of  b  and  v.  If 
these  fluctuations  w^ere  contemporaneous  they  would  in- 
dicate a  very  uncertain  sound  for  b  in  practice,  still 
implying,  however,  a  normal  sound  equal  to  English  b. 
But  when  it  becomes  evident  that  the  interchange  of  b 
with  p  belonged  mainly  to  the  early  (ante-classic)  Latin, 
and  that  it  was  only  in  the  later  history  of  the  language, 
that  b  began  to  be  confounded  with  v,  then  there  can  be 
no  reasonable  doubt  but  that  during  the  intervening 
(classical)  period  the  prevailing  actual  pronunciation  of 
b  was  just  that  of  our  labial  media. 

In  proof  of  the  ancient  interchange  of  b  and  jt?  we  have 
a  statement  made  on  the  authority  of  Papyrianus,  that 
Ennius  said,  mipo,  scripo,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  rebo, 


PBONUNCIATIOK     OF     LATIN. 


67 


for  the  later  nubo,  scribo,  and  repo.  Cicero  (Orat.  48, 160) 
says  of  the  same  author,  "  Burr  urn  semper  Ennius,  num- 
quam  Pyrrhum:'  And  Q.  Ter.  Scaurus  (P.  p.  2252)  says: 
"Graeci  -nvppiav,  nostri  Byrriam ;  et  quem  Purrum, 
antiqui  Burrum;  ....  item  Publicolam  Boblicolam; 
alii  scajnllum,  alii  scabillum  dicunt."  In  most  cases  p  had 
become  fixed  instead  of  b  before  s  and  t  in  the  classic  age, 
as  in  scripsi,  nupta.  Forms  like  opsonium,  sup  persona 
(Rib.  com.  p.  273)  were  discontinued  after  early  times, 
but  the  b  in  oUineo  and  similar  cases  had  a  sound  very 
like  p  in  Quintilian's  time  (aures  magis  audiunt  p,  Lib. 
I.  c.  7,  §  7).  B  was  therefore  at  this  time  different  from 
p,  but  nearer  to  it  than  to  any  other  sound.  After  the 
classic  period  it  became  softened  to  v  ;  and  inscriptions 
of  the  late  empire  are  said  to  shoAV, 


incomparavile 

venemerenti 

liventer 


for 


M 


66 


incomparabile, 
benemerenti, 
libenter ; 


also, 


fobere 

fabente 

bixit 


for 


66 


66 


fovere  (a.d.  344), 
favente  (  "  367), 
vixit       (  «    409), 


and  great  numbers  of  similar  forms.  This  v  sound  for 
b,  was  perpetuated  into  the  new  languages  *  made  from 
the  Latin  [cf.  English  vervain,  Latin  verbena,  English 
tavern,  Latin  taberna  (modem  Greek  rafiipva  pronounced 
taverna)],  but  did  not  prevail  in  the  classical  Latin 
itself.t 

*  The  existing  MSS.  of  ancient  authors  are  said  to  be  infested 
with  errors  from  this  source.    Danuvius  for  Danubius,  etc.,  etc. 
f  See  Appendix,  Note  F. 


1^ 


68 


PBONUNCIATIOK    OF    LATIK. 


C. 


Quintilian  (I,  c.  7,  §  10)  says :  Nam  K  quidem  in  nul- 
lis  verbis  utendum  puto,  nisi  quae  significat,  etiam  ut  sola 
ponatur.  Hoc  eo  non  omisi,  quod  quidam  earn,  quotiens 
A  sequatur,  necessariam  credunt,  cum  sit  C  littera,  quae 
ad  omnes  vocales  vim  suam  perferat.  This  language 
merits  careful  attention,  as  it  brings  the  weight  of 
Quintilian's  authority  directly  to  bear  upon  some  of  the 
most  important  points  raised  in  the  dispute  which  has 
been  many  times  renewed  over  the  proper  sound  of 
Latin  c.  The  points  made  by  Quintilian  are  these: 
"  K  having  become  obsolete  ought  not  now  to  be  em- 
ployed in  the  spelling  of  any  words  except  those  few  for 
which  it  is  also  used  by  itself  {K.)  as  an  abbreviation  (as 
K,  for  KcBSO,  or  Kalendm) :  that  letter  is  not  only  anti- 
quated but  also  superfluous  as  an  element  in  words ;  and 
those  persons  are  in  error  who  hold  that  the  guttural 
tenuis  must  be  given  by  k  when  an  a  is  to  follow  it  (as, 
e.  g.,  in  Kaput,  Kalumnia),  For  c  is  perfectly  adequate  to 
take  the  place  of  k  hefore  A  as  tvell  as  before  all  the  other 
voioelSy  since  it  7naintains  its  own  sound  in  connection  ivith 
them  all" 

In  view  of  the  simple  and  unmistakable  character  of 
such  an  announcement,  when  we  consider  farther,  that 
it  is  confirmed  both  directly  and  indirectly  by  later 
grammarians,  with  never  a  word  to  the  contrary  as  re- 
gards the  classical  period,  it  would  seem  that  we  were 
already  at  the  end  of  our  inquiry.  For  the  sound  of  k  is 
entirely  undisputed,  and  that,  said  Quintilian,  was  the 


PROKUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


69 


i 


sound  of  c.  But  the  practice  of  all  modern  Europe,  except 
among  the  Greeks,  has  agreed  to  reject  the  dogma  of 
Quintilian  except  so  far  as  it  applies  to  c  before  a,  o, 
and  u.  In  that  situation  all  sound  it  like  h  ;  but  before 
e  and  i,  cb,  eu,  ce,  and  y,  a  hiss  is  substituted,  varying  in 
its  character  according  to  the  people  who  employ  it. 

Thus  the   Latin  words       cicercula,  caedes 
are  sounded 

by  Germans  and  Slavonians,  tsitserkula,  tsaedes, 

"  Italians,  chicherkula,  chaedes,  (?) 

"  French  and  English,         siserkula,  saedes. 

Of  all  these  sounds  the  most  defensible  is  that  of  ts, 
and  those  who  prefer  for  reasons  of  convenience  to  accept 
the  authority  of  the  late  Latin  can  satisfy  themselves  of 
a  change  during  the  late  Empire  at  least  of  ci,  followed 
by  a  vowel,  into  a  hissing  sound,  a  sound  which  as  early 
as  the  sixth  century  became  established  for  the  situation 
indicated.  But  even  these  persons  can  find  no  reason 
beyond  the  analogies  of  their  own  tongue  (which  it  is 
frivolous  to  adduce  without  ancient  support)  for  a  hissing 
sound  of  c  before  single  i,  or  before  e,  cb,  ce,  eu,  y.  Our 
design,  however,  is  now  to  return  to  the  higher  ground 
occupied  by  Quintilian,  and  to  offer  some  further  reasons 
in  defence  of  his  declaration  that  c  in  the  classical  age 
was  k  everyxohere.  It  will  be  convenient  to  proceed 
according  to  the  objections  raised  by  those  who  defend 
the  hissing  sounds. 

Those  objections  are : 

1.  "  There  is  an  inherent  absurdity  in  supposing  the 
Komans  to  have  pronounced  Kikero,  kesso,  pakis  for 


«^ 


I 


if  I 


70 


PRONUNCIATION    OF     LATIN. 


Cicero,  cesso,  pacts,'*  Now  every  student  of  language 
knows  how  hazardous  it  is  to  assume  impossibilities  of 
sound ;  and  it  is  further  quite  plain  to  every  one  that  the 
only  reason  (!)  which  underlies,  such  a  statement  as  the 
above  is  (to  omit  other  languages)  that  the  English  says 
.^;    Sisero,  sesso,  pasis, 

AVeak  as  is  such  reasoning,  it  has  stood,  and  still  stands, 
more  in  the  way  of  fair  argument  on  this  subject  than 
any  other  obstacle.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  confront 
it  with  a  counter  objection  of  the  same  form  but  more 
valid.  Shall  it  be  thought  that  the  Eomans  could  7iot 
have  said  hihero,  etc.,  and  yet  that  they  could  have  said 
esca,  esscBj*  hucca,  biicsce;  Perdiccas,  FerdicscBj  Marcus, 
Marse;  jloccus,  flocsi  ;  pax  (paks),  pasis  ;  docui,  doserc  ; 
cadere,  sesidi  ;  dico,  disis  ;  dos(i)tum  and  doctum  ;  au- 
das(i)ter  and  andacterf  Kikero  has  against  it  the  anal- 
ogies of  modern  European  languages ;  while  essm,  disis, 
if  so  sounded,  would  obliterate  the  most  important 
element  of  the  stem,  in  violation  of  general  probability, 
and  of  a  distinctly  felt  desire  with  the  Latins  to  keep  the 
same  stem  throughout  the  inflected  forms  of  words. 
The  offence  to  Latin  ears  of  such  fluctuations  in  the 
stem  of  declined  words  may  be  gathered  from  the  words 
of  Cicero  (Orat.  48,  §  160),  where  he  speaks  of  the  absurdity 
of  such  a  change,  and  is  to  be  inferred  also  from  the  face 
6i  the  language  :  so  that  we  may  be  quite  sure  of  a  strong 
tendency  to  say  dokeo,  dokes,  etc.,  with  dokui  and  dolctum, 
or  if  doseo,  etc.,  then  also  dosui,  etc.  But  dokui  is  undis- 
puted, and  hence  a  better  reason  than  the  shallow 
objection  above  stated  must  be  brought  to  defend  a 
sound  like  doseo.    Accordingly,  great  pains  have  been 

*  The  same  will  apply  to  estsm,  etc. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


71 


taken  to  furnish  a  reason  from  the  Latin  orthography ; 
with  what  success  remains  to  be  inquired.  But  be- 
fore we  leave  the  consideration  of  general  probabilities 
we  would  ask  :  if  c  in  excisus  is  equal  to  s,  why  do  we  not 
sometimes  find  exisus  written  by  neglect,  as  we  often  do 
exatiare  for  exsatiare,  exul  for  exsul,  etc.,  etc.  ?  * 
Once  more  ;  on  reading  the  fragment  of  Titinius : 

Reliqui  acus  aciasque  ero  atque  erae  nostrae , 

and  this  of  Atilius : 

Cape  cacde,  Lyde,  come  conde  .  .  .  .  ,  f 

is  not  the  design  of  « a^iwomi waif lo"  sufficiently  evident 
to  make  it  incredible  that  aJcus  and  asias,  Kape  and 
Srnde,  or  {tswde,  etc.)  could  have  been  the  sound  of  those 
adjacent  words  ?  We  have  seen  already  that  qu  involved 
the  h  sound.  When,  therefore,  Nonius  (6,  17)  says, 
"illicere  est  proprie  illaqueare,"  we  can  see  how  he 
should  say  this  of  illikere,  but  can  scarcely  believe  it 
would  ever  have  b3en  said  of  iUisere  (illilsere,  etc.). 

2.  There  is  an  allegation  of  evidence  in  the  orthography 
of  the  Latin  for  a  hissing  sound  of  c;  but  the  argument 
drawn  from  this  source  will  apply  at  best  only  to  c  when 
followed  by  i  succeeded  by  another  vowel.  The  fluctua- 
tion, it  is  said,  between  the  forms  -cio  and  -tio,  -cius  and 
'tius,  -cium  and  -Hum  in  the  end  of  many  Latin  words  is 
a  proof  of  a  similarity  of  sound  between  ci  and  ti  fol- 
lowed by  a  vowel,  which  can  only  be  understood  by 
supposing  both  the  c  and  the  t  when  so  placed  to  have 

*  This  particular  objection  applies   only  to   the  English   and 
French  pronunciation  of  c. 
f  Ribbeck,  Com.  Lat.  Frag.,  pp.  27  and  115. 


\ 


'V0  '"^ 


72 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


73 


i/ii^ 


degenerated  into  that  hissing  sound  like  ts  or  Italian  zz, 
which  may  be  easily  shown  to  have  been  used  for  each 
of  them  in  the  post-classical  Latin.  Now  before  such  a 
sweeping  conclusion  can  be  allowed,  it  is  necessary  to 
establish  the  fact  of  the  alleged  fluctuation  not  only,  but 
also  that  it  prevailed  during  the  classical  period  in  such  a 
sense  that  it  was  indifferent  for  the  sound  in  the  case  of 
a  given  word  whether  it  was  written  with  ti  or  ci.  But 
recent  investigations  of  inscriptions  made  with  this  view, 
show,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Hiibner  and  Corssen, 
that  the  fluctuation  in  question  was  extremely  rare  until 
after  the  early  Empire.  Almost  the  only  authentic  in- 
stances are  said  to  be  the  proper  names : 


Mucins, 

Mutius, 

Lacia, 

Latia, 

Marcius, 

Martins, 

Accius, 

Attius, 

Volcacius, 

Volcatius,  and  others. 

There  are,  now,  two  ways  of  explaining  this  variety  of 
form :  one  by  assuming  a  common  sound  for  Marcius  and 
Martins — say  3Iartsius— the  other  by  supposing  a  dia- 
lectic variety  in  the  sounding  of  those  names,  so  that 
some  said  Marhius  while  at  the  same  time  others  spoke 
Martins.  The  first  explanation  seems  hardly  credible  in 
view  of  the  entire  silence  of  Grammarians  concerning 
any  such  sound  for  c  ;  while  the  second  does  not  demand 
remark  from  them,  since  Markius  and  Martins  were  in 
fact  two  *  names  for  the  same  individual,  just  as  Atus 
(or  Attus)  Clausus,  in  Sabine,  and  Appius  Claudius  in 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  G. 


Roman  style.  (See  Liv.  II,  16.)  And  so  when  Plutarch 
wrote  Mapnog,  he  preferred  to  adopt  the  form  with  t,  and 
when  he  wrote  UopKia  he  chose  the  k  sound  heard  in 
Porcia, 

This  c,  then,  as  well  as  c  everywhere  in  Latin,  is  ren- 
dered uniformly  by  h  by  Greek  authors  contemporary 
and  nearly  contemporary  with  the  classical  period  :  thus 
not  only  Karm',  but  KiKepiov  and  Kalaap,  Kekoog,  AeKiog, 
UXaKEVTia,  etc.  Now  it  is  plain  from  such  forms  as 
Ovrjiot,  KoivTog  and  KmvTog,  'EliSrjTia  and  'EXovTjrla, 
AevrXog,  etc.,  etc.,  that  the  Greeks  tried  to  render  as 
nearly  as  possible  the  sounds  of  proper  names  which  they 
heard  in  the  mouths  of  the  Romans.  Their  imitation 
was  not  hampered  by  technicalities  or  traditions  of  or- 
thography; and  was  limited  only  by  the  powers  of  their 
alphabet. 

And  so  if  Plutarch,  in  the  early  part  of  the  second 
century  after  Christ,  had  heard  the  Romans  say  Martsius, 
Portsia,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  he  would 
have  written  them  MdpT^iog,  or  Mdpraiog,  Uoproia :  just 
as  the  modern  Greeks  commenced  (at  least  as  early  as  the 
sixth  century)  now  and  then  to  write  Bever^la  for  Venetia, 
T^iPi  ra  N6/3a  for  Civita  Nova.* 

Further  afiirmative  evidence  for  the  hard  sound  of  c 
may  be  dispensed  with,  if,  as  is  hoped,  sufficient  offset 
has  been  found  for  the  alleged  objections  to  Quintilian's 
general  statement.  Scholars,  it  may  be  added,  are  now 
commonly  agreed  that  that  statement  was  correct,  and 
that  in  the  classical  Latin,  C  was  equal  to  K. 

*  Sophocles'  Modern  Greek  Grammar,  p.  13. 


.  s#f^  "^ 


u 


PROi^UNCIATIOX     OF     LATIK. 


PRONUNCIATIOX     OF    LATIN. 


75 


ID. 

A  remark  of  Quintilian,  that  "  D  was  akin  to  T,"  is 
in  conformity  with  the  accepted  opinion,  that  the  Latin 
D  represented  one  of  the  members  of  the  lingual  scale, 
t,  d,  th  (as  in  English  the).  From  a  more  particular 
description  by  Martianus  Capella,  which  distinguishes 
between  the  t  and  the  d,  we  have  the  further  information 
which  we  need ;  showing  that  d  was  the  7nedia  of  the 
above  series,  and  equivalent,  therefore,  to  the  English  d. 
"  A  appulsu  lingua  circa  superiores  dentes,  innascitur. 

^^  appulsu    linguae  dentibus  impulsis,   excutitur." 

Similar  statements  of  other  Grammarians  are  not  want- 
ing ;  but  in  the  absence  of  objection  it  does  not  seem 
necessary  to  produce  either  those  statements  or  other 
corroborative  evidence  of  the  sound  just  indicated. 

It  remains  only  to  be  said  with  regard  to  the  practice 
of  the  classical  age,  that  d  in  the  end  of  words  frequently, 
perhaps  generally,  was  sounded  hard  like  t.  For  not 
only  in  the  MSS.  of  older  authors  *  do  we  find  aput,  set, 
haut,  but  these  forms  are  said  to  appear  also  on  inscrip- 
tions of  the  late  Republic,  as  well  as  afterward,  along  with 
the  other  spelling  apud,  sed,  hand.  Well  authenticated 
instances  of  the  same  kind  may  be  found  in  aliut,  quit 
(for  quid),  illut,  quitquit,  it  (for  id),  and  others. 

Before  the  classical  age,  the  confusion  of  d  and  t  seems 
to  have  been  more  general.    Before  Cato's  time  "  (mare) 

*  See  Ribbeck's  collection  of  Fragments,  and  the  editions  of 
Plautus. 


Hadriaticum"  had  been  calledi  Atriaticum.  And  Quin- 
tilian, I,  c.  4,  §  16 :  "  Quid  D  litterae  cum  T  quaedam 
cognatio  ?  Quare  minus  mirum,  si  in  vetustis  operibus 
urbis  nostras  et  celeb ribus  templis  legantur  Alexanter  et 
CassantraJ^ 

This  language  clearly  implies  that  in  the  classical  age 
a  distinct  separation  had  been  effected  between  the  two 
letters,  at  least  generally.  The  tendency  to  the  hard 
sound  was  now  confined  to  the  end  of  words ;  but  that  it 
still  existed  in  practice  for  that  situation  (like  in  Ger- 
man Kind,  Brod,  etc.)  is  shown  by  the  above  examples  and 
by  such  remarks  as  those  of  Quintilian  (I,  7,  5)  and  of 
Charisius  (P.  p.  87):  ^  HaiuV  similiter  d  litera  termina- 
tur ;  6v6e  enim,  graeca  vox,  d  litera  terminari  ccepit, .... 
sed  et  per  t  scribi,  son  us  vocis  admittit. 

D,  therefore,  not  in  the  end  of  a  word,  as  in  dodrans, 
was  sounded  like  English  d ;  in  the  end  of  words,  more 
like  English  t. 


F. 


The  nature  and  actual  power  as  well  as  the  history  of 
Latin  F  have  been  plentifully  announced  and  discussed 
by  the  ancient  Grammarians.  They,  not  omitting  to 
quote  certain  remarks  of  Varro,  Cicero  (Orat.  c.  48),  and 
Quintilian  (I,  c.  4),  have  expressed  so  decidedly  the  dis- 
tinction to  be  observed  between  the  sound  of  F  and  that 
of  the  consonants  akin  to  it,  and  have  even  pointed  out 
BO  plainly  the  office  of  the  organs  engaged  in  rendering 


7t> 


PRONUXCIATION    OF    LATIN 


PEOIS^UNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


77 


the  proper  sound  in  question,  that  we  cannot  attain  our 
practical  end  in  a  better  way  than  by  simply  making  a 
few  quotations.  In  these  it  will  be  seen  that  for  its 
origin  F  is  usually  traced  to  a  sound  either  like  that  of 
the  vanished  iEolic  Digamma  (the  character  for  which  is 
supposed  to  be  preserved  in  that  of  F  *),  or  like  that  of 
Greek  <p ;  which  ((/>),  it  is  important  to  observe,  is  every- 
where in  these  discussions  contemplated  as  having,  not 
the  sound  of  English  F,  but  of  p  followed  (in  union)  by  h, 
as  would  be  heard  in  a  close  union  of  p  and  h  in  the 
English  words  UpJiam,  souphouse  \  (leaving  away  U-  and 

sou-). 

Further,  from  the  separation  made  between  the  sound 
of  /,  and  that  of  the  ^olic  Digamma,  as  well  as  that  of 
</>,  of  h,  and  of  h,  we  have  left  only  the  sound  of  our  own 
F,  which  is,  moreover,  indicated  by  the  descriptions  of 
the  manner  of  utterance. 

1.  Fwas  not  equal  to  Digamma,  or  Latin  V  (vau). 

Mar.  Victorinus,  P.  p.  2468 :  Scripseram  autem  vobis 
.  .  .  .  f  J_^olis  duntaxat,  idem  valere,  quod  ajmd 
nos  V,  cum  pro  consonanti  scribitur,  vocarique  fiav 

et  Digamma. 

[That  Latin  F  once  had  this  sound  of  later  V  (uni- 
versally taken  by  Grammarians  as  the  classical  repre- 
sentative   of   Digamma)   is   affirmed   by   Cornutus 

*  Agnaeus  Corautus,  P.  p.  2282  :   Est  quaedam  litera  in  F  literse 
speciem  figurata,  qu«  Digamma  nominatur,  quae  duos  apices  ex 
Gamma  litera  habere  videtur. 
f  Except  among  the  .Eolians,  where  </>  is  supposed  equal  to/ 
X  This  is,  of  course,  not  meant  for  the  sign  of  Latin  F,  but  for 
Digamma. 


(P.  2282)  on  the  evidence  of  Fotum,  Firgo,  and 
others,  found  by  him  in  certain  ancient  books  for 
votum,  virgo,  etc.] 

2.  F  was  not  equal  to  0,  or  its  Latin  equivalent  (in 
Cicero's  time)  pA. 

When  Cicero  (Orat.  c.  48)  says  of  Ennius'  substitute 
for  Greek  <f)\  ''Vi patefecerunt  Bruges'^  non  Phry- 
GES ;  ipsius  antiqiii  declarant  libri.  Nee  enim 
GrcBcam  literam  adhihehant :  nunc  autem  etiam  duas  " 
[i,  e.,  ph]  :  he  means  evidently  that  Ennius,  if  he 
had  not  inaccurately  spoken  with  B,  would  have 
been  forced  to  use  /  as  the  nearest  then  available 
equivalent  for  0,  since  0  itself  could  not  be  employed, 
and  the  more  exact  mode  of  rendering  by  means  of 
ph  had  not  in  Ennius'  day  come  into  use. 

Priscian  speaks  very  satisfactorily  to  the  same  points 
(P.  p.  542) :  F,  jEolicum  Digamma,  quod  apud  anti- 
quissimos  Latinorum  eandem  vim,  quam  apud  ^oles 
hdbuit  0;  eum  autem  prope  sonum,  quern  nunc 
halet  f  significdbat  p  cum  aspiratione,  sicut  etiam 
apud  veteres  Grmcos  pro  0,  p  et  H,  TJnde  nunc 
quoque  in  Greeds  nominihus  antiquam  scripturam 
servamus,  pro  0,  p  et  H  ponentes,  ut :  Orpheus, 
Phaeton,  Postea  vero  in  latinis  [with  a  correspond- 
ent in  Greek]  placuit  verbis  pro  p  et  h,  Fscrihi,  ut: 
fama  .  .  .  .  ;  loco  autem  Digamma,  V  pro  conso- ' 
nante,  quod  cognatione  soni  videhatur  affinis  esse 
Digamma  ea  litera.     Thus,  indisputably,  was  the 

*  The  editions  previous  to  Emesti's  give  the  reading  Fruges. 


I: 
f 


78  PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 

sound  of  /,  as  in  fanum,  a  medium  between  v  in 
vanum  and  (/>  (with  the  tt  audible)  in  ^avov,  and 
equal,  therefore,  to /in  English  Fan, 

With  this  agree  now  also  the  prescriptions  for  its 
enunciation. 

Priscian  (P.  p.  543) :  Hoc  tamen  scire  dehemus,  quod 
7ion  tamfixis  labris  est  pronuntianda  /,  quomodo  ph  : 
atque  lioc  solum  interest  inter  F  ct  ph, 

Terent.  Maurus  (P.  p.  2388) : 

Imum  swperis  dentihus  adprimens  Idbellum, 

Spir amine  lent    , 

Hanc  ore  sonahis 

To  the  expression  "  spiramine  leni,"  if  it  is  to  be  under- 
stood strictly  of  the  "  spiritus  lenis,"  we  must  oppose  the 
language  of  Quintilian  (XII,  10,  28  and  29),  where  it  is 
plain  that  a  very  rough  breathing  is  contemplated. 
Admitting  the  rough  breathing,  this  description  coin- 
cides with  that  given  by  Max  Miiller  (2d  Ser.  Lee.  p.  146) 
for  the  English/. 

"  A  sixth  barrier  is  formed  by  bringing  the  lower  lip 
against  the  upper  teeth.  This  modifies  the  spiritus  asper 
to  /." 


Gr. 


No  one  doubts,  and  there  is  no  room  for  doubting,  that 
this  letter  was  in  full  play  as  a  familiar  element  of  Latin 
words  during  the  classical  period.    It  is  therefore  un- 


PBONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


79 


necessary  for  us  here  to  set  forth  or  to  espouse  either  side 
of  the  historical  question  concerning  the  time  when  its 
sign  w^as  introduced  into  the  Latin  alphabet.  The  state- 
ment made  by  Plutarch,  and  often  repeated  after  him, 
that  Sp.  Carvilius  Ruga  (A.  U.  C.  circ.  520)  first  gave  the 
sign  G  a  place  among  the  Latin  letters  (assigning  it  the 
place  of  the  disused  z),  has  been  much  questioned  as  to 
its  accuracy,  in  later  times — and  with  reason.  But  quite 
•  independently  of  the  merits  of  that  statement  as  a  piece 
of  history,  the  mere  fact  that  it  was  made  involves  two 
inferences  of  importance  to  us. 

It  shows,  first,  that  scholars  knew  of  a  time  when  a 
separate  sign  for  G  had  not  been  thought  necessary ;  and, 
secondly,  that  they  knew  that  that  time  had  long  ceased 
to  exist,  and  that,  before  the  classical  period,  a  distinct 
mark  for  the  G  sound  had  been  recognized  as  a  neces- 
sity. 

Such  inferences  are  supported  by  more  certain  evi- 
dence ;  which  will  show,  first,  that  the  sounds  of  C  and 
G  were  never  far  asunder;  second,  that  in  the  classical 
age  they  iverc  distinct ;  and,  third,  that  the  difference  lay 
in  this :  that  in  the  scale  of  1c  mutes  (Jc,  g,  %)  C  was  the 
tenuis  and  G  the  media. 

1.  Lachmann  (Lucr.  p.  148)  reports  from  the  Cd,  Lei- 
densis  of  Lucretius  (called  by  him  ohlongus),  the  readings 
centis  for  gentis,  vacari  for  vagari,  conspercunt  for  con- 
spergunt,  grecis  for  gregis,  Jucehat  for  lugebat,  etc.,  etc. 

Such  spelling  may  indeed  be  not  a  faithful  copy  of  the 
archetype,  but  only  a  mark  of  inaccuracy  in  the  German 
copyist  of  the  ninth  century.  The  same  doubt,  however, 
cannot  attach  to  the  statement  of  Marius  Victorinus 
(P.  p.  2459),  that  the  ancients  put  C  for  G  in  "  Cahino 


80 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


81 


for  Gahino,  lece  for  lege,  acna  for  agna.^'  Allowing  that  a 
separate  sign  and  a  separate  sound  of  G  existed  in  those 
early  times,  this  confusion  in  orthography  shows  all  that 
we  want  now,  namely  that  the  sound  of  G  and  C  must 
have  lain  very  near  together.  And  the  same  is  further 
to  be  seen  in  the  perpetuation  of  C  for  G  (or  G  for  C)  in 
forms  which  continued  always  to  retain  their  old  spell- 
insr,  even  after  the  establishment  of  clear  distinction 
between  the  two  closely  related  consonants.  The  reason- 
ing here  need  not  be  long.  Maximus  Victorinus  (P.  p. 
1945)  says,  ....  duplex  est  x:  constat  enim  aut  ex  g  et 
6-  Uteris,  aut  ex  c  et  s,  ut  puta  rex,  regis ;  pix,  picis. 
Quippe  ante  x  literam,  quae  postea  in  compendium  inventa 
est,  rex  per  gs  \regs\,  item  pix  per  cs  [pics]  veteres 
scribebant.  The  g  sound,  therefore,  when  combined  with 
subsequent  s  was  so  nearly  identical  with  the  c  sound 
under  the  same  circumstances  that  it  was  found  con- 
venient to  represent  both  groups  by  the  same  sign  x. 

The  interchange  of  G  and  C,  both  regularly  and  acci- 
dentally, may  be  pointed  out  in  a  great  many  other 
combinations  also :  thus  agere,  actum,  actor ;  lugere,  luc- 
tus,  etc.,  etc.;  negotium  for  necotium,  gurgiilio  and  cur- 
culio,  congorclia  and  concordia,  Progne  for  UpoKvrj,  cygnus 
as  well  as  cycnus  for  icmvog.  These  examples,  which 
might  be  multiplied,  are  not  arranged  with  respect  to 
the  time  of  their  origin,  since  there  is  no  design  of  show- 
ing here  the  steps  in  the  history  of  the  alliance  between 
g  and  c.  Having  shown  that  the  two  sounds  were  always 
very  nearly  related,  it  is  now  to  be  shown : 

2.  That  in  the  classical  pronunciation  there  was,  never- 
theless, a  clear  distinction  between  them.  It  is  plain 
that  this  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  some  of  the  very 


instances  which  we  have  cited  for  showing  the  approxi- 
mation of  the  sound.  For  if  it  is  true  that  lece  once 
served  sufficiently  to  represent  what  was  afterwards  heard 
as  lege,  it  must  be  equally  true  that  for  the  once  fully 
established  lege,  lece  would  no  longer  serve. 

Cicero  (de  Nat.  Deor.  II,  26,  §  67)  says :  Mater  autem 
est  a  gerendis  frugibus  Ceres  tanquam  Geres :  casuque 
prima  litera  itidem  immutata,  ut  a  Graecis :  nam  ab  illis 
quoque  ArjfjLrjTTjp  quasi  Tfj  fiT)T7jp  nominata  est.  And 
Quintilian  writes  precisely  to  our  point  in  the  words 
(I,  5,  12) :  Nam  duos  in  uno  nomine  faciebat  barbaris- 
mos  Tinga  Placentinus  (si  reprehendenti  Hortensio  credi- 
mus)  preculam  pro  pergula  dicens,  et  immutatione,  cum 
c  pro  g  uteretur,  et  transmutatione,  cum  r  praeponeret 
antecedenti. 

G,  therefore,  was  clearly  different  from  the  kindred  C 
— but  in  what  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  will  com- 
plete our  principal  inquiry,  and  can  be  sufficiently  found 
in  the  words  of  Priscian  and  Mar.  Victorinus. 

Priscian  (P.  p.  549) :  Inter  C  sine  aspiratione,  et  cum 
aspiratione  est  G. 

Mar.  Victorinus  (p.  2454) :  C  etiam  et  G,  ut  supra, 
sono  proximae,  oris  molimine  nisuque  dissentiunt; 
nam  C  reducta  introrsum  lingua  hinc  atque  hinc 
inter  molares  surgens,  haerentem  intra  os  sonum 
vocis  excludit;  G  vim  prioris  pari  linguae  lapsu 
palato  suggerens,  lenius  reddit. 

Thus  is  the  Latin  G  seen  to  be  the  media  of  the 
^-mutes,  or  our  own  hard  G. 

The  soft  sound  of  G  so  familiar  to  our  practice  when 


•4' 


82 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


83 


this  consonant  occurs  before  e  and  i  sounds  (Italian 
Giorgio;  English  George),  could  not  have  been  known 
to  the  classical  Latin. 

Evidences  of  so  important  a  variation  of  sound  could 
not  fail,  if  the  variation  had  existed ;  but  no  such  evi- 
dence is  visible  until  a  very  late  period — so  late  as  to  be 
beyond  the  scope  of  our  inquiry.  As  to  any  such  double 
power  of  the  letter  G,  ancient  Grammarians  in  all  that 
they  have  to  say  about  that  letter  are  entirely  silent ;  and 
in  maintenance  of  the  uniform  hard  sound  we  might 
repeat  a  great  part  of  the  considerations  already  presented 
in  connection  with  the  discussed  softening  of  the  tenuis  C. 
Such  repetition  will  be  needless,  and  we  will  call  atten- 
tion only  to  one  passage  of  Aulus  Gellius  (IV,  c.  9) : 
^'Masurius  Sahinus  ....  ^  Religiosum,^  inquit,  est  .  .  .  . 
verhum  a  'relmquendo'  dictum,  tamquam  '  cmrimonicB^ 
a '  carendo.' " 

Such  supposed  derivations,  founded,  as  they  are,  on  a 
similarity  of  sound,  do  not  allow  us  to  suppose  that  we 
should  here  contemplate  karere  and  serimonia,  or  relin- 
kuere  and  relidjiosum.    Therefore, 

Latin  G  =  English  G  in  gag» 


The  sign  H  in  the  Latin  alphabet  represented  that 
effort  of  speech  known  both  to  us  and  to  the  Latin 
Grammarians  as  the  rough  breathing. 


This  conclusion  is  indicated  unmistakably  by  the 
history  of  the  character  as  employed  in  Latin  (its  origin 
being  identical  with  that  of  the  Greek  npoo(j)dia  daaela, 
or  spiritus  asper),  and  by  what  has  been  said  about  H  by 
the  Latins,  Grammarians,  and  others,  as  compared  with 
what  we  know  of  the  nature  of  our  own  H. 

As  to  the  first  point,  Priscian  (P.  p.  1345)  says:  H, 
Eimrok  Vetustissimi  cnim  quique  Grasci  pro  aspiratione, 
H  scribebant,  quam  habebant  HECATOjS"  in  principio. 
And  Mar.  Victorinus  (P.  p.  2459) :  Graeci,  ..,,•&,  (f),  x, 
priusquam  a  Simonide  invenirentur,  exprimebant  iuxta 
T,  et  iuxta  tt  et  k,  aspirationis  notam  II  ponendo.* 

As  to  tlie  second  point ;  the  nature  of  our  H,  especially 
in  view  of  the  physiology  of  its  utterance,  gives  rise  to 
the  question  whether  in  strictness  it  deserves  to  be  called 
a  letter.  But  precisely  the  same  question  was  debated  by 
the  Latin .  Grammarians  with  respect  to  their  H.  We 
know  of  ours  that  it  is  made  by  a  rush  of  air  driven 
through  the  open  glottis  f  by  the  contraction  of  the 
muscles  of  the  abdomen.  Of  theirs  it  was  said  by  Mar. 
Victorinus  (P.  p.  2455):  H  — profundo  spiritu,  anhelis 
faucibus,  exploso  ore  fundetur. 

Through  a  deficiency  in  Victorinus'  observation  these 
two  descriptions  are  not  quite  coextensive,  but  they  lie 
together,  and  point  in  the  same  direction. 

When  Donatus  says  (P.  p.  1737) :  H  interdum  con- 
sonans,  interdum  adspirationis  creditur  nota.  He  refers 
not  to  more  than  one  distinct  function  of  H,  but  to  a 
difference  of  opinion  among  Grammarians,  as  to  whether 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  H. 

f  Vid.  M.  Muller,  Science  of  Language,  2d  Series,  p.  139,  ff. 


%i 


84 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


85 


H  ought  to  be  regarded  and  called  a  consonant,  or  not. 
And  among  the  Grammarians  who  maintain  respectively 
the  two  sides  of  this  dispute,  all  admit,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  H  represents  an  aspiration ;  and  none  claim  more, 
on  the  other  hand,  than  that  this  aspiration  effects  so  dis- 
tinct and  individual  a  modification  of  the  adjacent  vowel 
sound,  that  it  deserves  a  regular  place  among  the  con- 
sonants. Thus  Velius  Longus  (P.  p.  2218) :  Accedit 
huic,  quod,  si  accedens  literae  esset,  cum  ipsa  litera  enun- 
tiaretur ;  nunc  vero  et  ante  Vocalem,  et  post  Vocalem 
sonat  sic,  quomodo  est  alia  syllaba  ca,  et  alia  ac,  et  alia 
ha,  alia  ah,  sic  alia  ha,  alia  ah.  Nam  quod  ex  H  quoque 
existimant  quidam  colligi  posse  corfsonantem  et  adsigni- 
ficantem,  apparet  ex  eo,  quod  aut  accedens,  aut  recedens 
immutat  significationem ;  siquidem  aliud  est  hira,  aliud 
dira  canam,  exemplum. 
The  difference,  therefore,  between 


a 

a,nd 

ha. 

aheo 

u 

haheo, 

iste 

a 

histrio, 

ortus 

(C 

hortus, 

aut 

u 

hand, 

ordo 

ti 

hordeum, 

(mien 

u 

homo, 

oro 

a 

horror,  etc.,  etc., 

was  just  this,  that  the  initial  vowels  of  the  latter  forms 
were  preceded  (or  accompanied)  by  what  was  on  all 
hands  acknowledged  to  be  an  aspiration — this  aspiration 
being  regarded  by  some  as  merely  an  accident  of  the 
vowel,  that  is  to  say,  an  extraordinary  impulse  imparted 
to  the  column  of  air,  whose  intonation  makes  the  vowel 


sound ;  while  others  considered  it  an  element  of  so  pre- 
cise and  separable  a  nature  as  to  be  justly  entitled  to  the 
name  of  consonant.  In  all  this  we  have  a  description 
well  nigh  perfect  and  complete  of  our  own  H. 

The  Latin  H  was  therefore  the  same  with  the  Eng- 
lish H. 

It  now  remains  to  inquire  how  far  the  integrity  of  the 
H  was  respected  by  the  practice  of  the  Latin  tongue. 
We  know  what  has  been  the  fluctuating  history  of  the 
aspirate  consonant  in  modern  languages;  how,  through 
every  stage  of  attenuation,  it  has  finally  vanished  from 
words  in  which  it  once  constituted  a  regular  (often  an 
organic)  part ;  and  how  accident  and  caprice  has  often 
secured  it  a  more  or  less  temporary,  or  a  conceded  and 
permanent  place,  to  which  there  was  not  the  faintest 
historical  title. 

All  this  happened  also  to  the  Latin  H. 

And  it  would  be  possible,  if  necessary,  to  collect  many 
particulars  in  support  of  Quintilian's  statement,  which 

follows  (Lib.  I,  c.  5,  §  19,  sq.) :    H cuius  quidem 

ratio  mutata  cum  temporibus  est  saepius.  Parcissime  ea 
veteres  usi  etiam  in  vocalibus,  cum  cedos  tVcosque  dice- 
bant,  diu  deinde  servatum,  ne  consonantibus  aspirarent, 
ut  in  Graccis  et  in  triumpis ;  erupit  brevi  tempore 
nimms  usus,  ut  choronm,  chenturiones,  prcechones  adhuc 
quibusdam  inscriptionibus  maneant,  qua  de  re  Catulli 
nobile  epigramma  est*    Inde  durat  ad  nos  usque  vehe- 

*  We  must  make  room  for  this  epigram  (LXXXIV)  here : 

CTvommoda  dicebat,  si  quando  commoda  veUet 
Dicere,  et  hinsidias  Arrius  insidias. 


M 


'§} 


86 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


menter  et  comiJrehendere  et  mihi,  nam  mehe  quoque  pro 
me  apud  antiques  tragoediarum  praecipue  scriptores  in 
yeteribus  libris  invenimus. 

If,  now,  for  our  practical  purpose,  an  attempt  be  made 
to  ascertain  the  particular  instances  in  which,  during  the 
classical  period,  the  H  was  actually  heard  in  its  proper 
force  (and  therefore  also  properly  written),  we  shall  find 
so  much  conflict  in  the  evidence  which  remains  to  us,  as 
to  leave  us  no  hope  of  satisfaction.  Corssen's  interroga- 
tion (Vol.  I,  p.  50,  sq.)  of  inscriptions,  and  the  most 
ancient  MSS.,  bring  to  light  the  contemporaneous  exist- 
ence of  (among  others)  the  following  forms : 


harundo, 

haruspex, 

harena, 

heres, 

hordeum, 

Hammon, 

Hiberus, 

vehemens, 

prehendo. 


arundo, 

aruspex, 

arena, 

eres, 

ordeum, 

Ammon, 

Iberus, 

vemens, 

prendo,  etc.,  etc. 


Et  turn  mirifice  sperabat  se  esse  locutum, 
Quura,  quantum  poterat,  dixerat  hinsidias. 
Credo  sic  mater,  sic  liber  avunculus  eius. 
Sic  maternus  avus  dixerit,  atque  avia. 
Hoc  misso  in  Syriam,  requierant  omnibus  aures, 
Audibant  eadem  haec  leniter  et  leviter. 
Nee  sibi  postilla  metuebant  talia  verba ; 
Quum  subito  adfertur  nuntius  horribilis : 
lonios  fluctus,  postquam  illuc  Arrius  isset, 
lam  non  lonios  esse,  sed  Hionios. 


^ — 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


Grammarians  report  for  the  early  classical  Latin : 


87 


mihi 

and 

mi. 

nihil 

t€ 

nil, 

cohors 

U 

coors,  cors,  and  others.* 

In  MSS.  of  later  date  the  increasing  tendency  to  drop 
the  h  must  be  ascribed,  no  doubt,  in  large  degree,  to  the 
operation  of  that  softening  tendency  which  resulted  in 
the  final  banishment  of  the  spiritus  asper,  as  well  from 
the  Italian  as  from  the  Greek  languages,  and  to  an 
ignorance  among  copyists  of  the  proper  Latin  sound. 

The  Cd.  "  qiiadratus "  of  Lucretius,  which,  according 
to  Lachmann,  seems  to  be  the  work  of  a  German  copyist 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  has  the  forms : 

aborret,  orror,  orrifico,  orrida,  proibere,  distraitur,  is 
for  his,  etc. 


The  improper  addition  of  H  seems  to  have  been  a  mark 
of  antiquity  or  rusticity,  if  we  judge  by  the  remarks  of 
Quintilian  and  Catullus  given  above,  and  the  language 
of  Gellius  (II,  3),  which  follows : 

If  literam  sive  illam  spiritum  magis  quam  literam  dici 
oportet,  inserebant  eam  veteres  nostri  plerisque  vocibus 
verborum  firmandis  roborandisque,  ut  sonus  earum  esset 
viridior  vegetiorque.  ....  Sic  'lachrimas,'  sic  '  sepid- 
chriim,^  sic  *  ahenum,^  sic  ^  vehemens,^  sic  '  incohare,^  sic 
^helluari,^  sic  ^halucinari^  sic  'honera^  sic  ^honustum,^ 
dixerunt.  In  Gellius'  time,  therefore,  it  must  have  been 
considered  proper  to  say  not  only  onera,  onustum,  lacri- 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  I. 


■i 


f^. 


i4: 


If  1 


88 


PROiq^UNCIATION    OF    LATIK. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


8d 


mas,  inchoare  (pronounced  incoare),  etc.,  but  also  vemens, 
alucinari,  and  in  the  same  way  probably  a  number  of 
other  words  which  are  more  or  less  frequently  still 
written  with  the  h  in  the  MSS.  which  have  been  handed 
down  to  us. 

Since,  then,  in  the  matter  of  adding  or  withholding 
the  H,  the  practice  of  the  Eomans  themselves  was  never 
very  determined  and  uniform,  our  practice  can  only  con- 
form itself  to  some  authority,  or  when  this  fails,  to  the 
probability  furnished  in  the  best  attested  forms  of  or- 
thography. For  authority  (such  as  it  is),  we  have  some 
lists  given  by  the  Grammarian  Phocas  (De  Aspif  atione,  ap. 
P.  p.  1722,  sq,  Lind.,  I,  p.  353,  sq,),  too  long  to  be  given 
here.  For  the  rest,  wherever  H  is  properly  written  in  a 
Latin  word,  there  is  no  choice  left  us  but  to  render  it, 
and  that  with  the  force  of  English  K* 


The  sign  K  had  fallen  into  general  disuse  in  the  clas- 
sical period ;  and,  but  for  the  very  few  scanty  remains  of 
its  employment,  which  will  be  mentioned,  we  should  have 
nothing  to  say  of  that  letter  here. 

Quint.  Inst.  Orat.,  I,  vii,  10 :  ]^am  K  quidem  in  nullis 
verbis  utendum  puto,  nisi  quae  significat,  etiam  ut  sola 
ponatur.  It  was  the  opinion  of  some  Grammarians  that 
the  K  should  have  a  somewhat  more  extended  use— that 

*  Of  the  combinations  ph,  th,  ch,  rh,  we  shall  come  to  speak 
hereafter. 


it  should  be  put,  namely  (instead  of  C),  in  all  places 
where  its  sound  was  followed  by  the  vowel  a.  This  state- 
ment Quintilian  adds  to  the  above :  Hoc  eo  non  omisi, 
quod  quidam  earn,  quotiens  A  sequatur,  necessariam 
credunt,  cum  sit  0  littera,  quae  ad  omnes  vocales  vim 
suam  perferat. 

This  dogma  of  orthography  was  often  repeated  by 
later  Grammarians,  who  founded  it  on  the  reason  that  K 
already  contained  A  in  the  sound  of  its  name — Ka,  while 
the  C  was  sounded  Ce,  that  is,  Ke  (see  Scaurus  de 
Orthog.,  ap.  P.  p.  2253).  It  was  sometimes  further  eon- 
tended  (as  by  Scaurus,  1. 1)  that  it  was  the  C,  and  not  the 
K,  which  should  be  universally  surrendered.  And  all 
this  implies,  of  course,  that  which  is  also  directly  stated, 
that  the  consonant  K  was  equal  to  the  consonant  C* 

With  this  our  inquiry  is  at  an  end.  It  may  be  added, 
however,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  best  MSS.,  and  upon 
that  of  inscriptions  too,  according  to  Corssen's  report, 
that  in  practice  the  K  was  banished  more  completely 
even  than  was  sanctioned  by  Quintilian :  who  himself, 
moreover,  seems  in  I,  4,  9  to  admit  the  fact  that  in  his 
time  this  sign  was  only  used,  as  we  see  it  now — in  certain 
few  abbreviations — K,  quae  et  ipsa  quondam  nominum 
nota  est.     [As  K.  for  Kmo,  Karthago,  Kalendce.] 

*  Priscian  L.  I.  (ap.  P.  p.  543) :  K  supervacua  est,  ut  supra 
diximus,  quae  quamvis  scribatur,  nullam  aliam  vim  habet,  quam  C. 


%    h 


/ 


j- 


I! 


90 


PBONUl^CIATIOlf    OF    LATIK. 


1 


L. 


The  nature  of  L  is  thus  described  by  Mar.  Victorinus 
(P.  p.  2455) :   L,  quae  validum  nescio  quid,  per  partem 
palati,   qua    primordium    dentibus    superis   est,   lingua 
trudente,  diducto  ore,  personabit.    Add  the  further  cir- 
cumstance, which  is  recognized  by  all  the  Latin  Gram- 
marians, that  L  is  a  liquid  or  semi-voivel,  or,  in  other 
words,  intonable,  and  we  have  here  a  full  account  of 
the  English  L ;   which  is  given   by  the  author  of  the 
Principles  of  Pronunciation,  in  Webster's  Dictionary,  in 
these  words:    "This  letter  has  only  one  sound,  which 
consists  of  an  efflux  of  vocalized  breath,  or  voice,  over  the 
sides  of  the  tongue,  while  its  tip  is  pressed  against  the 
gums  of  the  upper  front  teeth."    Latin  L  is  therefore  the 
same  with  English  L. 

Corroboration  for  this  may  be  found,  if  needed,  in  a 
comparison  of  Latin  L  with  Greek  A ;  and  further,  in 
observation  of  the  affinities  and  modifications  to  which 
this  letter  was  subject  in  the  history  and  growth  of  Latin 
words,  and  the  practice  of  Latin  speech,  from  which  it 
will  appear,  as  shown  by  Bopp  (in  §  20  of  his  Compara- 
tive Gr.,  V.  1,  and  elsewhere),  that  L  appears  in  Latin 
under  the  same  conditions  and  in  the  same  relations  as 
those  in  which  the  same  letter  is  also  employed  in  Greek, 
Gothic,  Sclavonic,  and  the  other  languages  of  the  same 
stock.  Here  should  be  consulted  also  Corssen,  Max 
Muller,  and  Pott  (Etymol.  Forsch.  II,  97),  whom  Corssen 
and  Miiller  both  quote.  But  we  need  not  expand  our  view 
so  far.    Since  there  is  no  objection  to  the  point  wc  have 


PRONUNCIATIONS'    OF    LATIN. 


91 


to  make,  we  are  fully  warranted  in  accepting  the  undis- 
puted tradition  of  the  power  of  Latin  L,  supported  by 
the  statement  of  Victorinus  reported  above. 

In  respect  to  variation  or  modification  in  the  rendering 
of  L  we  have  been  able  to  find  no  intimation  of  any- 
thing more  than  a  slight  difference  in  the  force  or  vigor 
of  its  utterance  in  different  situations.  On  this  subject 
there  is  a  statement  of  Pliny,  quoted  by  Corssen  from 
Priscian,  as  follows :  L  triplicem,  ut  Plinio  videtur,  sonum 
habet:  exilem,  quando  geminatur  secundo  loco  posita, 
ut  '  ille,  Metellus,'  plenum,  quando  finit  nomina  vel  syl- 
labas,  et  quando  aliquam  habet  ante  se  eadem  syllaba 
consonantem,  ut  'sol,  silva,  flavus,  clarus,'  medium  in 
aliis  ut '  lectum,  lectus.' 

Thus,  the  second  of  two  L's  put  between  vowels  was 
slight ;  as  must,  indeed,  have  been  necessarily  the  case 
if  both  were  sounded  alike.  For  the  same  must  have 
been  true  of  other  consonants  likewise,  as,  e.  g.,  of  the 
second  s  in  caussa,  aussus,  fussus,  odiossus,  mentioned 
by  Victorinus  (p.  2456)  as  the  earlier,  more  pronounced 
mode  of  rendering  (and  writing)  causa,  etc.  Greatest  in 
strength  or  weight  was  the  L  at  the  end  of  a  word  (no 
doubt  also  at  the  end  of  a  close  syllable),  and  after  an- 
other consonant  at  the  beginning  of  a  syllable;  and 
neither  particularly  strong  nor  particularly  weak,  the  L 
in  all  other  situations — in  all  but  strength,  however, 
always  simple  L.* 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  K. 


92 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


M. 

It  is  the  universally  accepted  tradition  that  the  M  of 
the  Latin  was  the  same  with  that  of  the  cognate  lan- 
guages—the same,  therefore,  with  our  own.  The  tradition 
is  sufficiently  supported  by  these  words  of  Mar.  Yicto- 
rinus  (ap.  P.  p.  2455) :  At  M,  impressis  invicem  labiis, 
mugitum  quendam  intra  oris  specum,  attractis  naribus, 
dabit.  Compare  also  Quintilian,  XII,  10,  §  31 ;  and  VIII, 
3,45. 

There  were  some   situations,  however,  in  which  the 
practice  of  the  Eoman  speech  declined  to  render  M  with 
its  normal  force  and  expression  ;  and  other  situations  in 
which   the   sound  of  M  was  not   only  obliterated  but 
supplanted  by  another    sound    under  the   assimilating 
influence  of  a  following  letter.     Without  going  minutely 
into  the  physiology  of  M,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that 
when  the  labial  organs  are  in  the  proper  position  for  the 
production  of  this  letter,  the  degree  of  distinctness  with 
which  it  may  be  rendered,  will  still  depend  upon  another 
condition,  namely,  the  degree  to  which  the  necessary 
column  of  breath,  without  obstruction  by  the  tongue,  is 
allowed  access  to  the  hollow  of  the  mouth  {specus),  where 
it  is  to  reverberate  (mugire).    The  lowest  degree  of  dis- 
tinctness (next  to  absolute  inarticulation)  is  that  which 
is  heard  when  the  breath  is  not  only  excluded  from  the 
cavity  of  the  mouth  but  is  debarred  a  free  passage  through 
the  nose,  but,  being  restricted  behind  that  organ,  only 
reverberates  there.    This  is  the  French  nasal  M.    One 
degree  higher,  perhaps,  may  be  set  the  sound  supposed 


-^ 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


93 


to  be  represented  with  us  by  the  m  in  the  written  form 
Hm ! ,  for  here  the  breath,  so  long  as  let  on  at  all,  is 
given  free  passage  through  the  nose.  Between  this 
minimum  approach  to  the  full  sound  of  m,  and  the  com- 
plete rendering  of  the  same,  many  degrees  of  approxima- 
tion are  possible,  degrees,  however,  which  we  have  no 
means  of  recording.  It  remains  now  to  be  said  that 
somewhere  within  the  scope  of  these  the  pial  M  of  the 
Eomans  fluctuated  While  some  distinctions  are  to  be 
known,  we  shall  never  be  able  to  determine  the  distinct- 
ness which  properly  belonged  to  final  M  in  all  cases. 
Discrimination  is  here  difficult  in  itself,  and  so  the 
Komans  found  it  also  evidently  in  their  own  practice.* 

We  now  introduce  some  statements  of  the  ancients 
touching  the  value  of  M,  and  will  then  proceed  briefly  to 
arrange  and  apply  the  same. 

Quint.  IX,  4,  §  40.  Atqui  eadem  ilia  littera  [M],  quo- 
tiens  ultima  est  et  \1)calem  verbi  sequentis  ita  con- 
tingit,  ut  in  cam  transire  possit,  etiam  si  scribitur, 
tamen  parum  exprimitur,  ut  Multum  ille  et  Quan- 
tum erat ;  adeo  ut  paene  cuiusdam  novae  litterse 
sonum  reddat.  Neque  enim  eximitur  sed  obscuratur 
et  tantum  aliqua  inter  duas  vocales  velut  nota  est, 
ne  ipsae  coeant. 

Priscian  I,  555,  (Vid.  Forcel.) :  M  obscurum  in  extremi- 
tate  dictionum  sonat  ut  'templum,'  apertum  in 
principio  ut  '  magnus,'  mediocre  in  mediis  ut '  um- 
bra.' 

Donat.  ad  Ter.  Adel.  II,  1,  53 :  Mussitare  ....  dictum 


See  Appendix,  Note  L. 


.A 


I 


94  PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 

vel  a  muto,  Tel  ab  M :  quae  littera  est  nimium  pressae 
vocis  ac  pene  nullius :  adeo  ut  sola  omnium  quum 
inter  vocales  incident,  atteratur  atque  subsidat. 

Vel.  Longus  (P.  p.  2238) :  Nonnulli  synaloephas  quo- 
que  observandas  circa  talem  scriptionem  existima- 
verunt,  sicut  Verrius  Flaccus,  ut  ubicunque  prima 
vox  m  littera  finiretur,  sequens  a  vocali  inciperet,  M 
non  tota,  sed  pars  illius  prior  (M)  tantum  scribere- 
tur,  ut  appareat  exprimi  non  debere. 

Quint.  VIII,  3,  §  45 :  —  si  cum  hominihus  notis  loqui  nos 
dicimus,  nisi  hoc  ipsum  liominibiis  medium  sit,  in 
praefanda  {h.  e.,  in  obscoenum  intellectum)  videmur 
incidere;  quia  ultima  prioris  syllabae  littera,  quaB 
exprimi  nisi  labris  coeuntibus  non  potest,  aut  inter- 
sistere  nos  indecentissime  cogit  aut  continuata  cum 
insequente  in  naturam  eius  corrumpitur  [thus,  cun 
notis],    Cf.  Cic.  Orat.  45,  §454. 

These  statements  contain  explicitly  and  implicitly  the 
following  points : 

First  (generally),  m  in  the  end  of  words  is  obscure, 
weak,  uncertain,  and  often  almost  nothing ;  and  this  is 
shown. 

Second  (particularly),  by  the  almost  complete  evanish- 
ment  or  subsidence  of  M  (with  the  vowel  preceding)  at 
the  end  of  a  word  in  verse,*  when  a  vowel  sound  fol- 
lows in  the  opening  of  the  next  word ;  and. 

Third  (particularly) ;  everywhere,  in  prose  as  well  as 
in  verse,  final  M,  in  the  succession  of  words,  is  assimilated 


And  also  in  prose,  when  the  connection  was  close. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


95 


by  the  influence  of  an  immediately  following  consonant 
(of  a  certain  class),  provided  the  connection  be  close,  as 
it  is,  e,  g.,  between  the  preposition  and  its  case.  (As  in 
cun  notis,  cun  nobis ;  for  which,  besides  Quintilian,  as 
quoted  above,  see  also  Cicero,  Orat.  45,  154.) 

We  must  add  to  this  third  case,  that  the  assimilation 
here  spoken  of  as  occurring  at  the  end  of  a  word  was 
demanded  by  stronger  reason,  and,  in  fact,  generally  was 
effected  at  the  end  of  a  syllable  in  the  midst  of  a  word. 
In  this  situation,  therefore,  M  was  assimilated  to  N 
before  C,  Q,  and  G  (concipere,  conqueri,  congerere) ;  also 
before  D  and  T  {condere,  cundem,  contingere,  etc.) ;  and 
before  F,  S,  the  consonants  I  and  V,  and  before  K  Fur- 
ther, before  vowels,  and  S,  I,  V,  N,  M,  and  GN,  the  M 
was  often  lost.  See  Lachmann  on  Lucr.,  p.  136,  touching 
the  forms  coopertus,  cocoleretur,  coicere,  coventionid,  conic- 
bium,  comovisse,  cognomen,  etc. 

These  analogies  should  lead  us  to  conclude  that  where 
we  find  MM  written  as  in  comyninus  (well  attested  in 
most  ancient  MSS.  for  more  common  cominus),  the  first 
M  should  be  very  weakly  rendered,  i.  e.,  no  attempt  made 
to  give  a  distinct  utterance  to  two  M's ;  and  so  for  all 
those  cases  as  well,  where  the  MM  is  the  unchanging 
orthography.  And  further,  similarly,  for  such  forms  as 
umquam,  cumque,  numquid,  tamquam,  it  is  necessary  to 
suppose  that  the  M  was  so  uncertain  that  many  heard 
and  many  spoke,  as  many  also  wrote,  tinquam,  cunque, 
nunquid,  tanquam,  etc. 

Before  the  labials  B  and  P  within  a  word,  the  M  w^as 
moderately  distinct,  according  to  Priscian,  c.  g.,  "  umbra,'^ 
of  the  two,  less  distinct  probably  before  P,  as  in  compo- 
trix  (written  also  conpotrix,  etc.).     [Compare  here  com 


90 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


11 


in  English  "  composing/'  rather  than  in  French  ''  com- 
poser."] 

It  is  plain  that  in  all  the  instances  just  named  the 
utterance  of  complete,  clear  (apertum)  M  could  only  be 
effected  by  a  stoppage,  highly  inconvenient  and  offensive 
in  the  midst  of  a  word. 

But  further  we  are  told  by  Quintilian,  that  not  only 
thus  in   the   midst  of  a  word,  but  also  in   the  rapid 
sequence  of  words,  this  stoppage  was  "  unseemly  "  in  the 
end  of  a  word  when  closely  followed  by  a  sound  requiring 
a  rearrangement  of  the  organs.    The  question,  therefore, 
now  reverts  to  the  sound  of  final  M  as  it  was  heard  in 
practice.    This  difficult  question  is  by  no  means  satisfac- 
torily disposed  of  by  Priscian's  "  M  obscurum  in  extremi- 
tate  dictionum  sonat,"  for  there  are  several  degrees  of 
obscurity  through  which  it  is  possible  for  the  M  to  range, 
not  to  say  anything  about  its  transformation  by  assimila- 
tion.     There  is  reason  for  supposing  a  good  deal  of 
fluctuation  in  the  Eoman  practice  here,  and  certainty  in 
particular  cases  is  clearly  no  longer  attainable  for  us. 
The  final  M   appears  to  have   been  less  respected  in 
ancient  times  than  it  was  afterwards  in  the  classical 
period.*    The  forms  diee  for  diem,  "  Jiecipie  apud  Cato- 
nem  pro  recipiam,  nt  alia  eiiismodi  complura'' \  show 
this ;   and  the  same  is  probably  the  explanation  of  the 
old  forms  tame,X  cume  (and  quome,  S.  C.  de  Bach.),  in 
which  the  irrational  e  was  added  for  the  preservation  of 
the  otherwise  final  M.     The  writing  of  the  m  in  diem, 

*  After  the  classical  period  the  M  became  weaker  again. 

f  Festus,  in  Jordan's  Cato,  p.  90. 

t  Vid.  Scaurus  de  Orthog.,  ap.  P.  p.  2261. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


97 


etc.,  and  the  dropping  of  the  e  in  tam^e),  etc.,  are  both 
signs  of  an  increase  of  force  in  the  final  M. 

If  we  weigh  the  language  of  Quintilian  in  discussing 
the  order  of  the  words  cum  hominibus  notis,  and  Cicero's 
similar  remarks  on  the  forms  7iohiscum.,  rnecum,  tecum 
(Orat.  §  154),  it  will  bo  manifest  that  the  fanciful  reason 
which  they  assign  was  certainly  not  the  jmncipal  reason 
for  the  order  nohiscum  rather  than  cun  uobis ;  and  it 
cannot  be  reasonably  doubted  that  in  the  close  connection 
alluded  to,  a  place  was  sought  for  cum  in  which  its  final 
letter  would  not  be  lost  in  another  sound  or  in  nothing- 
ness, or  cause  an  offensive  stoppage  by  being  given  in  its 
own  sound.*  It  is  fair,  therefore,  to  infer  that  in  mecum, 
etc.,  and  also  in  the  sequence  cum  hominibus  the  final 
M  was  weak,  to  be  sure,  but  nevertheless  a  distinctly 
audible  M.  But  for  the  pronunciation  of  cum  hominibus 
we  must  call  attention  very  particularly  to  what  Quin- 
tilian says  of  the  pronunciation  of  M  final  before  a  vowel 
opening  the  following  word.  It  will  be  remembered  that 
his  language  is  very  explicit,  and, 

1.  His  statement  is  inconsistent  with  oiir  commonly 
received  dogma  of  Ecthlipsis  by  which  the  M  and  its 
preceding  vowel  go  for  naught.  Donatus  too  (Lib.  Ill, 
seq.  4  ap.  L.)  does  not  countenance  the  dropping  of  the 
M  in  the  situation  alluded  to,  when  he  says :  Ecthlipsis 
est  consonantium  cum  vocalibus  aspere  concurrentium 
quaedam  difficilis  ac  dura  collisio,  ut 

Multu7n  ille  ct  tcrris  iactatus  et  alto. 

The  M  remains  then,  for,  it  must  be  to  it  that  the 

*  Vid.  Servius  in  II  Donati  Editionem,  ap.  P.  p.  1797:   Nemo 
enim  dicit  cum  me,  cum  tc,  propter  cacophatou. 


1^ 

I 
I 


{f. 


98 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


99 


"  dura  coUisio  "  is  due :  it  is  very  much  weakened  though, 
for, 

2.  Quintilian  says  that  it  is  faintly  rendered  and  hardly 
recognizable  particularly  as  M ;  but, 

3.  While  he  speaks  of  the  M  here  as  a  sort  of  middle, 
severed  thing  between  the  two  vowels,  yet  he  evidently 
regards  it  as  2Mssing  over  to  the  opening  vowel  of  the 
subsequent  word  with  which  it  is  brought  in  close  con- 
tact (ita  contingit,  ut  in  earn  transire  possit).  Tho 
conflict  between  the  statements,  that  the  M  passes  over 
to  the  second  vowel,  and  remains  as  a  sort  of  mumbled 
connection  between  the  two  is  not  great,  and  will  be 
accounted  for  if  we  think  of  the  M  as  actually  by  the 
speaker  attached  to  the  second  vowel  while  he  remembers 
that  it  belongs  really  to  the  first. 

In  this  way  we  shall  get  3IuUu'  mille,  Quantu'  meraf, 
cu'  7n  hominibiis,  etc.,  etc.,  in  which  the  rn  must  be 
obscurely  rendered,  i.  e.,  as  nearly  suppressed  as  possible 
consistently  with  its  still  remaining  M,  "Neque  enim 
eximitur,  sed  obscuratur."  The  previous  vowel,  more- 
over, will  be  given  irrationally,  i.  e.,  with  but  faint  trace 
of  its  own  characteristic  tone,  and  so  short  as  not  to  count 
for  quantity. 

In  accordance  with  what  has  been  said ;  if  we  take  the 
sentence  :  "  numquam  ego  pecuniam  neque  meam  neque 
sociorum  per  ambitionem  dilargitus  sum,"  we  shall  find 
a  clear  complete  M  only  in  the  first  syllable  of  meam 
(M  apart um) ;  in  the  first  syllable  of  ambitmiem  it  is 
dimmer,  weaker,  but  still  M  {M  mediocre);  in  the  sound 
of  the  first  m  of  numquam,  we  have  the  same  weakness, 
out  of  which  grows  an  uncertainty  of  sound  in  practice 


more  like  n  than  m,  as  nu7iquam  *  {M  incertum).  Lastly, 
the  final  M  is,  in  each  of  its  occurrences,  more  obscure 
still  than  the  m  mediocre  {M  obscurum),  but  with  some 
differences;  thus  in  numquam  the  final  m  is  almost 
nothing  (jjo^w^  nullius  vocis)  as  far  as  numquam  is 
concerned,  but  passes  over  in  a  weak  utterance  to  join 
the  e  of  ego  closely  following,  thus :  numqud  mego  (with 
which  we  may  compare  English  d  in  the  connection 
"baffled  investigation,''  if  pronounced  baffle'  dinvestiga- 
tion).  In  all  the  other  instances  in  which  final  M  is 
found  in  the  above  sentence,  nothing  more  can  be  said 
than  that  it  is  obscure,  for  we  are  not  entitled  to  read 
pecunian  neque,  or  mean  neque,  since  we  have  not  here 
the  close  connection  of  cun  nobis.  In  pecuniam  meam, 
if  we  had  it,  this  connection  would  obtain,  and  there  is 
every  probability  that  we  should  say  pecuma'  meam. 

The  faintness  of  m  in  sum  is  said  by  Corssen  to  be  sup- 
ported by  the  form  su,  found  on  an  ancient  inscription. 


The  Latin  N"  was  naturally  and  normally,  for  the  most 
part  also  actually,  the  same  with  our  own  N.  This 
appears  from  tradition ;  from  the  ancient  description  of 
the  formation  of  this  letter;  by  implication  also  from 
ancient  allusions  to  the  same  of  a  less  direct  kind ;  and 

*  It  is  necessary  to  remark,  however,  not  in  conflict  with  this  but 
in  addition  to  it,  that  in  this  place  we  shall  have  the  sound  of  N 
advUerinum,  as  described  in  the  next  section. 


lit' 


100 


PRONUis^CIATIOJ^    OF    LATIN. 


I« 


from  an  obseryation  of  the  part  played  by  N  in  the  con- 
stitution of  words  and  their  changes. 

For  the  normal  force  of  ^  we  present  the  following 
description  of  Mar.  Victorinus  (P.  p.  2455) :  JV  vero  sub 
convexo  palati  liiujua  inli(Brmte,  gemino  naris  et  oris  spi- 
ritu  cxplkaUtiir :  in  which,  when  due  allowance  is  made 
for  the  usual  want  of  positive  and  experimental  accuracy, 
we  see  indicated  with  a  good  degree  of  certainty  our  own 
K— the  nasal  letter  described  by  Helmholtz  and  Miiller 
in  Miiller's  Science  of  Lang.,  2d.  Ser.,  pp.  158-9. 

The  accidents  and  affinities  of  Latin  JS"  in  contact  Avith 
other  sounds  are  conformable  to  the  nature  of  our  N  as 
indicated,  and  the  identity  is  further  seen  in  the  circum- 
stance that  the  Latin  Grammarians  uniformly  class  IN" 
with  the  semi-Yowels.  N,  therefore,  in  Latin,  like  M, 
was  a  weak  consonant.  The  firmest  sound  which  it  had 
was  generally  given  it  in  the  beginning  of  a  v^ord.  This 
is  fairly  inferred  from  the  fact  that  N  in  this  situation  is 
scarcely  ever  lost  or  changed.*  The  changes  to  which  N" 
was  subject  when  variously  pla<jed  within  a  word  are  too 
numerous  to  be  named  and  suitably  estimated  here. 

The  most  important  of  them  may  be  seen  briefly  stated 
in  Forcellini's  Lexicon,  and  fully  expanded  and  discussed 
by  Corssen  (Ausspr.  I,  p.  93,  ff.).  As  we  have  not  space 
for  so  wide  a  view,  we  shall  give  this  author's  conclusions 
in  his  own  words,  embracing  his  highly  probable  opinion 
of  the  value  of  N  final ;  pausing  first  only  to  name  one 
peculiar  sound  of  IN",  pointed  out  and  described  by  Nigi- 
dius  Figulus,  and  others,  and  called  by  them  N  aduUeri- 
num.    This  is  a  sound  like  ng,  acquired  by  'N  when  it 

*  We  cannot  speak  absolutely  here,  while  we  find,  e.  g.,  Lympha 
for  NympTm.    See  Festus  in  Forcellini's  Lex.  under  Lymphatus. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


101 


occurs  immediately  before  the  sound  of  c,  q,  and  g  (there- 
fore also  before  x), 

Aul.  Gell.  N.  A.  XIX,  14,  7 :  Item  ex  eodem  lihro  {sc. 
commentariis  Nigidii)  verba  lime  sunt :  Inter  literam 
N  et  G  est  alia  vis,  ut  in  nomine  'angiiis'  et  'angari' 
et  'ancorm'  et  'increpat'  et  'incurrit'  et  ' ingenuus' 
In  om7iibus  Us  non  vernm  n,  sed  adulterimim  poni- 
tur,  Nayn  N  non  esse,  lifigua  indicio  est ;  nam  si  ea 
litera  esset,  lingua  2)alatum  tangeret. 

This  language  is  sufficiently  unmistakable,  but  any 
who  wish  more  proof  may,  by  consulting  Mar.  Victorin., 
pp.  2462-3,  24G5,  and  Priscian,  p.  556,  see  it  placed 
beyond  a  doubt  that  the  sound  indicated  as  that  of  N 
adiiUerinum  was  that  of  English  n  in  "  rancor,"  "  fin- 
ger," "hungry,"  etc. 

This  is  embraced  in  Corssen's  conclusions,  which  are  as 

follows : 

1.  "N  had  the  well  defined,  steady,  lingual  sound  in 
the  beginning  of  words,  and  within  a  word  between  two 
vowels,*  and  (in  the  classical  language)  before  lingual 

mutes." 

2.  "N  has  a  weak,  dull  sound,  like  Sanscrit  A^msivara, 
and  like  the  n  in  such  German  words  as  Gans,  Zins, 
Sense,  when  it  occurs  within  a  word  immediately  before 
s,  and  (in  compound  words)  also  before  the  semi- vowels 
j  and  V,  and  before  the  strong  labial  breathing  /;  it  has 

*  We  have  seen  one  instance  (viz. :  Wymphd)  in  which,  in  the 
beginning,  n  was  not  so  steady :  in  the  middle  of  a  word  between 
two  vowels,  it  seems  also  not  to  have  been  always  quite  firm,  at 
least  in  the  popular  speech ;  for  we  have  Messaim  turned  by  the 
people  ("  vulgus  ")  into  Messala.    See  Senec.  de  Brev.  Vit.,  13,  5. 


102 


PRONUNCIATION^     OF     LATIN. 


a  weak,  dull  sound  also  within  a  word  after  m,  likewise 
also  in  the  end  of  a  tvord.''  [So  that  in  nomen,  etc.,  the 
last  71  is  fainter  than  the  first.] 

3.  "  The  sound  of  N  is  guttural  in  its  character  when 
it  occurs  immediately  before  c,  q,  g,  cli,  x.  This  sound 
of  n  the  Latins  sought  at  various  times  to  represent  in 
yarious  ways ;  by  g  [as  in  aggulus  for  angulus ;  see  Pris- 
cian],  by  nc  [nuncqiiam  for  mmqumn],  by  c  [nucguam], 
and  (occasionally  in  very  late  times)  by  dropping  all  sign 
[as  in  pricipi  for  principi].  The  sound  itself  corres- 
ponds to  French  nasal  n  [?]  and  to  the  n  in  German 
^  Danh,^  '  sinken,^ '  Klang^  '  singcn^  "  [English  '  tJianky 
etc.] 


P. 


P,  labris  spiritus  erumpit,  Marrian.  Capella.  Mar. 
Victorinus  (P.  p.  2454) :  B  et  P  liter m  —  dispari  inter 
se  oris  officio  exprimuntur ;  nam  prima  exploso  e  mediis 
lahiis  S0710  ;  seqiiens  (P)  compresso  ore,  velut  introrsum 
attracto  vocis  ictu,  explicantur.  Webster's  Dictionary: 
"  P  is  formed  by  closely  compressing  the  lips,  and  sepa- 
rating them  suddenly  with  an  explosive  emission  of 
breath."  Add  the  uniform  testimony  of  tradition  to 
these  declarations,  and  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  show 
that,  Latin  P  =  English  P. 

The  only  noticeable  confusion  of  the  sound  of  P  with 
that  of  any  other  letter  is  to  be  seen  in  the  interchange 
of  P  and  B,  the  sonant  of  the  same  organ.  The  history 
and  import  of  that  interchange  has  already  been  dis- 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


103 


cussed  in  connection  with  the  letter  B.  The  circum- 
stances and  the  time  (mostly  ante-classical)  of  the  fluctua- 
tion, point  rather  to  a  stiffening  of  B  than  to  a  softening 
of  P.  And  it  has  been  further  made  to  appear  that  the 
practice  of  the  classical  time  made  a  clear  distinction 

between  the  two. 

Nothing  more  remains  to  be  said,  except  that  in  one 
situation  we  may  take  it  for  granted  that  the  P  had  a 
weak  sound— that  situation,  namely,  where  not  unfre- 
quently  it  seems  to  have  been  employed  by  insertion  to 
protect  an  M  against  the  corrupting  influences  of  follow- 
ing N,  T,  or  S,  as  in  emptus,  sumpsi,  contemptnere, 
arumpna  (A.  Gell.,  VII,  16,  9,  H.). 


Q. 


Q  was  one  of  three  signs  employed  by  the  Latin  for 
representing  the  guttural  tenuis  (English  K).  Through- 
out the  classical  time  it  was  prescriptively  assigned  and 
confined  to  that  situation  in  which  the  guttural  tenuis 
was  to  be  followed  by  V,  that  is,  to  the  combination  QV. 
In  itself  considered,  Q  was  held  to  be  entirely  equivalent 
to  C  or  K,  This  is  abundantly  stated  on  authority,  and 
appears  from  the  fact  that  many  linguists  from  the  early 
times  of  the  cultivated  Latin  sought  to  banish  the  Q 
entirely  (equally  with  the  K). 

Mar.  Victorinus  (P.  p.  2456) :  Licinius  Calvus  Q  litera 
non  est  usus. 


104 


TROKUNci atio:n^   of   latin. 


Quint.  I,  4,  9 :  Q,  cuius  similis  effectu  specieque,  nisi 
quod  paulum  a  nostris  obliquatur  [compare  9  and 
9],  Koppa  apud  Graecos  .... 

Priscian,  L.,  1:  Quamvis  in  yaria  figura  et  vario 
nomine  fuit  K,  et  Q  et  C,  tamen  quia  unam  vim 
habent  tam  in  metro  quam  in  sono,  pro  una  litera 
accipi  debent. 

Accordingly  Qura  would  be  equal  to  cura, 
Dequs  "  "  «  "  decus, 
Pequnia    "      "       "       "  pecuniae 


and  these  and  similar  forms  are  often  found  on  inscrip- 
tions of  ancient  date  (see  Schweitzer's  de  titulo  Mum- 
miano,  in  Kuhn's  Zeitsch.,  II,  p.  377).  The  established 
practice  of  the  later  classical  period,  however,  added  one 
more  restriction  to  the  use  of  Q,  which  was  then  con- 
fined to  use  before  V  when  that  element  was  followed  by 
another  vowel.  (See  Quint.  12,  10.)  [The  effect  of  V 
in  this  connection  has  been  discussed  already,  in  another 
place,  p.  44.] 


By  a  simple  comparison  of  Latin  K  with  the  same  let- 
ter in  cognate  languages,  we  soon  arrive  with  certainty 
at  the  nature  and  power  of  that  letter  uj?  to  certain  limits. 
That  is  to  say,  it  is  easy  to  ascertain  its  identity  with 
(e.g.)  the  English  E.  But  this  is  still  to  speak  very 
loosely ;  for  while  our  Grammarians  have  not  thought  fit 


PROKUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


105 


to  employ  more  than  one  name  and  sign  for  R,  yet  we 
are  familiar  with  several  quite  different  renderings  of 

this  element. 

There  are,  namely,  with  us  at  least  three  clearly  dis- 
tinguishable modes  of  uttering  R.    First  we  have  the  flat 
or  dull  R,as  in  "far,"  "future;"  second,  the  unfolded, 
rolled  or   round  R,   as  in   "wrap,"   "reap,"   "farrier," 
"futurity;"  and,  third,  the  "trilled"  R-not  at  home, 
indeed,  in  English,  but  heard,  e.  g.,  in  the  French  "rap- 
port."   The  question  must  then  recur:   With  which  of 
these  R's  is  the  Latin  R  to  be  identified?    For  an  answer 
to  this  question  we  find  the  material  but  scant  and  slen- 
der.   But  such  considerations  as  we  have  to  offer  seem  to 
favor  the  belief  *  that  the  Romans  sounded  their  R  in 
each  of  the  three  ways  above  indicated,  and  that  the 
difference  was  with  them,  as  with  us,  determined  to  some 
considerable  extent  by  the  situation  of  the  R. 

The  separate  character  of  the  three  R's  will  be  best 
discerned  by  reference  to  the  organs  of  speech ;  and  it 
must  be  observed  that  in  the  utterance  of  each  there  is 
the  vibration  of  some  soft  part  in  the  vocal  tube ;  and 
that  further,  in  the  case  of  each,  there  is  a  tendency  to 
contact  between  the  point  of  the  tongue  and  the  hard 
palate,  but  a  short  distance  behind  the  teeth.  This  ten- 
dency never  becomes  perfect  effect  (in  which  case  the  R 
would  cease  to  be  the  semi-vowel,  which  it  always  re- 
mains), but  the  degree  and  mode  in  which  it  approxi- 
mates attainment  constitutes  a  large  part  of  the  difference 
between  the  R's ;  while  the  other  elements  of  distinction 
are  referable  to  the  parts  which  vibrate  (whether  the  soft 

*  In  one  case  ratlier  the  conjecture. 


mmmm0tH!IKKi9t!l^ 


106 


PRONUNCIATIOlf    OF    LATIN. 


palate  or  the  tip  of  the  tongue),  and  to  the  space  which 
confines  the  vibrating  air  (whether  this  be  the  mouth 
only,  or  the  mouth  together  with  the  pharynx  and  the 
cavity  of  the  nose).  Some  other  points  of  difference 
there  are,  but  these  will  be  enough  for  our  purpose. 

The  dull  E,  then,  is  given  when  the  point  of  the 
tongue  lies  nearly  passive  in  the  front  of  the  slightly 
opened  mouth.  Unless  there  is  some  tendency,  however, 
of  the  tongue  towards  the  contact  of  its  tip  with  the 
palate,  the  R  cannot  be  rendered  at  all,  and  may  fade 
entirely  away,  as  sometimes  in  English  farther,  etc.  In 
this  E,  the  soft  palate  vibrates  and  the  nose  is  open. 

In  the  rolled  or  round  E  the  tongue  becomes  active, 
makes  a  vigorous  effort  as  though  towards  contact  with 
the  palate,  but  its  tip  curls  backward  into  the  mouth 
instead,  just  short  of  the  contact.  The  air  is  now  let  on, 
the  soft  palate  vibrating  and  the  nose  being  open  as 
before.  Under  these  conditions,  when  the  tongue  un- 
folds, the  round  E  is  delivered.  Let  it  be  noted,  however, 
that  until  the  tongue  is  unfolded,  the  sound  of  this 
E  may,  instead  of  being  discharged,  be  prolonged  at 
pleasure. 

In  the  trilled  E  the  tip  of  the  tongue  partially  suc- 
ceeds in  making  the  contact  alluded  to,  but  in  its  per- 
sistent efforts  to  maintain  it,  is  repeatedly  defeated  by 
the  passing  column  of  air.  The  tip  of  the  tongue  thus 
vibrates  against  the  hard  palate  behind  the  teeth.  The 
soft  palate  does  not  vibrate,  and  the  nose  is  closed. 

Whether  the  trilled  or  rattling  E  was  known  to  the 
Eomans  it  is  not  easy  to  say  with  certainty,  and  suppos- 
ing it  known,  still  more  difficult  is  it  to  know  the  limits 
of  its  use.    It  may  be  that  most  persons  will  refer  to  this 


I 


PRONUNCIATION     OF    LATIN. 


107 


E,  the  words  of  Mar.  Yictorinus  (P.  p.  2455) :  E,  qu86 
vibratione  vocis  in  palato,  linguae  fastigio  fragorem 
tremulis  ictibus  reddit. 

Further,  it  seems  not  unlikely  (more  cannot  safely  be 
said)  that  this  was  the  sound  of  that  E  which  in  Latin 
was  readily  interchangeable  with  L ;  since  L  was  also  a 
"trilled"  letter,  according  to  Helmholtz  and  Miiller,  in 
Science  of  Lang.,  2d  Ser.,  p.  149,  f. 

The  interchange  of  E  and  L  is  pointed  out  by  Bopp 
(§20,  Comp.  Gr.,  Vol.  I),  by  Pott  (Etymol.  Forsch., 
II,  97),  and  fully  by  Corssen  (I,  p.  80).  And  the  readi- 
ness with  which  the  transition  was  made  is  well  illustrated 
by  the  jocose  use  of  Hillus  for  Hirrus  by  Cicero  (Epp. 
ad  Fam.  II,  X,  1).*  This  furnishes,  however,  only  a 
slight  ground  for  conjecturing  a  trilled  sound  of  E,  and 
on  the  other  hand  if  Bentley  (Hor.  Serm.  I,  3,  47)  is  right 
in  supposing  Hirrus  called  "  ah  hirriendo,''  it  is  probable 
that  we  must  recognize  in  this  word  the  littera  canina, 
and  in  that  case  we  have  no  argument  left,  that  we 
have  discovered,  for  the  trilling  of  E  in  Latin,  except 
what  may  be  found  in  the  words  of  Victorinus,  quoted 

above. 

Passing  now  to  the  rolled  or  round  E  (English  roiv), 
a  regard  to  the  organs  of  speech,  and  a  general  view  of 
the  practice  of  many  languages — the  Latin  included — 
leads  us  to  determine  this  as  the  normal  E.  For  the 
Latin  particularly,  we  argue  that  Persius  must  have  felt 
this,  and  must  have  had  this  round  E  in  view  in  the  use 
of  his  phrase  littera  canina  (Sat.  I,  109) :  sonat  hie  de 
nare  canina  Littera,    That  E  was  the  letter  here  referred 


*  See  Appendix,  Note  M. 


108 


PIl0  2s'UKCIATI0K     OF    LATIN. 


to,  is  shown  by  words  of  Lucilius,  reported  by  Donatus  in 
Ter.  Adelp.  II,  4,  18,  and  further  by  Donatus  in  Ter. 
And.  Ill,  4,  18,  where  he  says  of  the  word  irritatus  : 
Ducitur  autem  verhum  a  canibus,  qui  restrictis  dentihiis 
ham  literam  R  imitantur.  Too  much  importance  must 
not  be  attached  to  obseryations  like  these,  which  have 
often  been  abused ;  but  as  far  as  they  are  worth  inter- 
preting, they  point  plainly  to  the  round  R,  as  above 
described.  An  easy  experiment  will  show  that  by  causing 
the  voice  to  dwell  on  the  R  in  {e.  g)  rasp,  we  effect  the 
nearest  possible  imitation  of  the  snarling  of  a  doo-. 

The  7iose  is  open  now,  as  Persius  knew,  and  resounds 
with  the  air  vibrating  from  the  soft  palate ;  but  this  is 
not  the  case  with  the  trilled  R 

The  same  will  be  thought  the  most  likely  sound  of  the 
R,  which  in  the  history  of  Latin  words  appears  so  very 
often  in  the  place  of  former  S ;  as  in 

Furius        for    Fusius      (Liv.  Ill,  4), 

Papirius      "      Papisius  (Cic.  Ep.  ad  Fam.  XXI), 

qucBrundum  {qnmrendiim)  and  qumsundum,  in  a  fragment 
of  Ennius  (Ribbeck,  Trag.  p.  23) ;  in  connection  with 
which  is  to  be  noted  the  remark  of  Festus,  p.  258,  M. :  * 
qumere  ponitur  ah  antiquis  pro  qucerere. 

Corssen  makes  a  full  exhibition  of  this  very  wide- 
spread phenomenon,  and  points  out  the  similar  activity 
in  i\\Q  point  of  the  tongue  in  the  utterance  of  S  and  the 
utterance  of  that  R  of  which  we  now  speak,  and  which 
we  have  called  the  round  R.  It  is  true  that  we  have  here 
only  another  basis  for  conjecture,  but  we  add  it  to  what 

*  See  Ribbeck,  1.  1. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


109 


has  been  already  said,  in  support  of  what  seems  to  be 
certainly  the  most  probable  belief,  namely  that  the  round 
R  (our  own  normal  R)  was  the  normal,  and  most  com- 
mon, R  of  the  Latin. 

We  have  now  to  inquire  whether  the  sound  above 
described  as  that  of  flat  or  dull  R  was  ever  heard,  and 
if  ever,  where  it  was  heard,  in  Latin  words. 

Whether  we  think  of  the  effect  of  the  sound,  or  have 
regard  to  the  relaxation  of  the  point  of  the  tongue  in 
uttering  this  letter,  it  is  plain  that,  on  comparison  with 
the  normal  R,  the  chief  character  of  the  dull  R  is 
weakness. 

We  argue  now  then  briefly  that  final  R  in  Latin  words 
of  more  than  one  syllable  is  weak,  since  the  vowel  before 
it  is  weak,  and  therefore  incapable  of  receiving  a  strong 
check  after  it.  We  hold,  accordingly,  that  probability  is 
unquestionably  in  favor  of  dull,  weak  R  (as  in  English 
farther,  river)  in  the  end  of  Latin  words,  as  in  juhar, 
nectar,  pater,  acer,  duumvir,  soror,  inmror,  satur,  rohur, 
etc.  The  vowel  before  R  final  is  short  and  without  stress, 
Avhile  in  many  cases  it  must  be  supposed  so  weak  and 
indifferent  as  to  be  almost  irrational,  as  in  satur,  rohur, 
acer,  duumvir,  and  many  others.  With  such  a  sound 
before,  and  no  sound  to  follow,  the  R  must  be  faint. 


s. 


In  such  allusions  to  the  Latin  S,  as  have  heretofore 
been  occasionally  made,  we  have  assumed  for  it  that 


•♦ 


i 


110 


PR0N"U1TCIATI01T    or    LATIl^. 


sound  commonly  known  as  the  sharp  5.  In  proof  of  this 
as  the  normal  character  of  Latin  S,  we  need  only  refer  to 
the  voice  of  tradition  and  the  sustaining  evidence  to  be 
had  by  even  a  cursory  series  of  observations  of  the  part 
played  by  S  within  the  Latin  and  the  languages  allied  to 
it.  We  need  not  introduce  these  observations  here, 
partly  because  a  sufficient  number  of  them  are  familiar 
to  all,  partly  because  some  of  them  will  appear  below, 
and  partly  because  the  tradition,  undisputed,  is  enough 
to  establish  this  one  point,  viz. :  that  the  normal  force  of 
Latin  S  was  that  of  the  English  S  in  "see,''  ''bless.'' 

From  regard  to  the  organs  engaged,  this  S  maybe 
called  the  t  hiss,  while  the  soft  S  of  our  own  and  other 
languages  may  be  marked  as  the  d  hiss  (z).  The  ques- 
tion remains,  whether  the  Latin  did  not  also  use  the  soft 
rendering  of  S.  We  have  for  answer  to  this,  that  in  what 
we  have  found  said  of  S  by  the  ancient  Grammarians,  no 
allusion,  at  least  no  distinct  allusion,  can  be  found  to 
the  soft  sound. 

The  importance  of  this  negative  argument  is  great,  and 
other  reasons  must  be  strong  if  they  shall  be  sufficient  to 
establish  the  soft  sound.  Such  reasons  are  to  be  sought 
in  the  conditions  of  the  use  of  S ;  and  some,  accordingly 
(as  Corssen),  have  wished  to  interpret  certain  appearances 
among  those  conditions,  as  indicating  a  soft  sound  for 
this  letter  in  the  midst  of  a  loord  between  two  voicels. 

But  what  shall  we  say,  then,  to  the  doubling  of  S  in 
Cicero's  time  in  such  words  as  caussa,  aussns,  divissio, 
odiossus,otc.?  Quint.  (I,  7,  20) :  Quid?  quod  Ciceronis 
temporibus  paulumque  infra,  fere  quotiens  S  littera 
media  vocalium  longarum  vel  subiecta  longis  esset,  gemi- 
nabatur,  ut  caiissce,  cassus,  divissiones  ? 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


Ill 


We  scarcely  need  the  assurance  of  Vel.  Longus  (P.  p. 
2233):  "S  vero  geminata  vocis  sonum  exasperat,"  or 
that  doubled  S  is  intended  to  mark  the  sharpest  sound 

of  S. 

And  from  this  it  appears  that  the  single  s  in  causa, 
etc.,  when   so  written,  must  also  have  had  the  sharp 
sound ;  if,  as  Corssen  admits,  it  is  plain  from  that  fluc- 
tuation in   orthography  between   ss   and   s    (which  he 
further  illustrates  from  inscriptions),  that  there  "  could 
not  have  been  an  essential  difference  "  in  the  pronuncia- 
tion, in  the  situation  alluded  to,  between  the  doubled 
and  the  single  sign.    For  if  Corssen,  admitting  this,  will 
still  speak  catiza  for  causa,  he  must  also  say  that  cauzza 
was  the  sound  that  Cicero,  Virgil,  and  others,  thought 
proper  to  indicate  by  caussa;  but  in  this  position  he  will 
find  himself  pointedly   opposed   by  the  words  quoted 
above  from  Vel.  Longus,  and  will  further  lay  himself 
under  the  necessity  of  saying  iuzzi  or  iuzi  for  iussi  (for, 
according  to  the  tesimony  of  Quintilian,  in  continuation 
of  the  passage  quoted  above,  this  word  was,  shortly  before 
Cicero's  time,  also  written  iusi). 

The  readiest  and  most  reasonable  conclusion  which  can 
be  drawn  from  that  fluctuation  in  orthography  seems  to 
be  simply  this.  There  may  have  been  a  tendency  at 
times  to  weakness  in  the  utterance  of  s  occurring  between 
two  vowel  sounds,  the  first  of  which  was  long.  Possibly 
to  guard  against  this,  certainly  for  some  reason,  there 
were  those  who,  about  Cicero's  time,  thought  it  best  to 
mark  s  in  this  place  by  a  double  sign  (not  to  change  a 
d  hiss  into  a  t  hiss,  but)  simply  to  mark  unmistakably 
the  normal  strong  t  hiss.    When  this  doubling  of  the  s 


112 


PROI^UNCIATION    OF    LATIIT. 


PROKUKCI ATIOK    OF    LATIN. 


113 


ll 


became  again  unusual,*  it  was  because  the  single  s  could 
be  relied  on  for  the  purpose ;  while  the  same  opinion  had 
influenced  the  writers  of  an  early  period  in  using  only 
one  s  in  lussi,  and  probably  other  perfect  forms. 

It  is  also  easy  to  suppose  that  some  slight  variety  in 
syllabication  might  prevail  in  such  forms  in  the  practice 
of  a  limited  time,  and  that  on  such  variety  might  be 
based  a  particular  idea  with  some  as  to  the  proper  form 
of  orthography.    Again,  the  first  of  two  s's  may  have  been 
now  used,  and  again  supposed  unnecessary,  for  metrical 
purposes,  to  mark  as  long  the  foregoing  vowel  sound. 
But  in  any  of  these  suppositions  the  identity  in  character 
between  ss  and  simple  s  must  be  taken  for  granted. 
Hence,  the  significance  of  this  phenomenon  of  doubling 
the  S  is  altogether  in  favor  of  the  sharp  sound  of  single 
S  in  the  midst  of  a  word  between  two  vowels,  f 

Final  S,  in  words  of  more  than  one  syllable,  deserves 
particular  notice,  because  of  a  weakness  to  which  this 
consonant,  like  others,  was  subject  in  this  situation.  It 
does  not  follow,  however,  that  weak  S  is  sofl  S.  [It  has 
not  perhaps  been  sufficiently  remembered  that  a  t  hiss 
may  be  weak  or  faint,  without  being  turned  into  a  d  hiss  • 
thus  in  English  busijiess  {hiznes)  we  have  a  strong  d  hiss 

*  It  was  disapproved  bj  Quintilian,  and  condemned  by  later 
Grammarians,  as  by  Q.  Ter.  Scaurus,  P.  2257,  and  others. 

f  Corssen  has  several  independent  reasons  to  urge  for  the  soft 
sound  of  S  between  two  vowels.  But  they  are  not  unanswerable. 
We  are  a  httle  surprised  to  see  to  what  an  extent  that  learned 
author  IS  led  m  this  particular  by  the  analogy  of  modern  languages. 
Moreover,  in  citmg  Italian  cosa  as  containing  soft  .,  we  find  him  in 
conflict  with  Dr.  Mahn  (Lehrbuch  der  Ital.  Sp.),  who  says,  «  S  is 
almost  always  sharp;  as  in  'sentire,'  'cosa;  •  casa.'  There  are 
only  a  few  exceptions— perhaps  in  a  dozan  words." 


{z)  followed  by  a  weak  t  hiss  («)].  To  say  nothing  of 
other  considerations,  the  weakness  of  final  S  during  the 
best  time  of  the  Latin,  is  probable  in  view  of  the  manifest 
exceeding  faintness  of  that  letter  in  the  end  of  words 
both  before  and  after  the  classical  age.  For  the  ancient 
weakness  of  final  S  we  need  only  point  to  the  extensive 
dropping  of  S  from  the  end  of  grammatical  forms.  Like- 
wise also  in  the  post-classic  time,  on  inscriptions  of 
the  late  Empire  are  said  to  occur  the  forms  filio  (for 
filiosy  nominative  case),  Mariu,  CBtati,  and  many  others 
with  loss  of  final  S  (Corssen,  I,  120).  It  is  hence  plain, 
that  during  the  classical  age  itself  the  final  S  could  not 
have  been  strong  ;  yet  we  have  evidence  that  it  was  then 
thought  proper  to  sound  it  stronger  than  in  the  earlier 
or  the  later  times,  when  it  often  faded  into  nothing. 

Cic.  (Orat,  c.  48,  §161)  says:  Quin  etiam,  quod  iam 
suhrusticiim  videtur,  olim  autem  politius,  eorum  ver- 
borum,  quorum  eaedem  erant  postremas  duas  literae,  quae 
sunt  in  '  optumus,'  postremam  literam  detrahebant,  nisi 
vocalis  insequebatur.*  Ita  non  erat  offeusio  in  versibus, 
quam  nunc  fugiunt  poetae  novi.  Ita  enim  loquebamur 
[al.  loquebantur]  :  Qui  est  omnibu'  princeps,  non  omnibus 
princeps,  et.  Vita  ilia  dignu'  locoque,  non  dignus. 

S  final,  accordingly,  although  weak,  should  still  be 
heard  distinctly,  and  that  too  with  its  normal  sound. 

But,  lastly,  there  is  reason  for  believing  S  to  have  had 
not  only  the  weak  but  also  the  soft  sound  {z)  when  it 
occurred  at  the  end  of  a  word,  and  was  preceded  immedi- 
ately by  the  letters  B  or  N,  as  in  plebs,  scobs,  mons,  demens, 

*  A  vowel  sound  immediately  following,  if  in  close  connection, 
would  practically  destroy  the  final  situation  of  S, 


lU 


PEOKUNCIATIOK    OF    LATIJ?". 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


115 


dodrans,  etc.    The  Latin  S  (sharp)  is,  as  to  the  effect 
exerted  by  it  on  a  previous  contiguous  consonant,  per- 
fectly analogous  to  Greek  2.    Thus,  while  in  Greek  Kg  or 
rr  =  ^,  so  in  Latin  cs  or  gs  =  x.    In  Greek  r  or  6  before 
r  are  dropped  ;  so  in  Latin,  as  in  "miles,''  "palus."     But 
in  Greek  f3  before  g  becomes  n  (n,  s.,  (pXeip,  stem  0Af)3-) : 
thus  in  Latin  we  ought  to  have  ajjs,  apsque,  apscondere, 
opsonium,  opsecro,  etc.,  besides,  nujosi,  scripsi,  lapsus,  etc. 
The  B  might  be  rejected,  also,  or  assimilated  as  in  iusi 
or  iussi,  but  could  not  stand  as  B  before  the  normal  S. 
Accordingly,  when  such  forms  as  aps,  opsonium,  etc., 
found  in  the  old  Latin  (as  seen,  e.  g.,  in  the  critical  edi- 
tions of  Plautus),  came  to  be  written  ahs,  obsonium,  etc., 
this  must  in  all  probability  have  been  in  consequence  of 
a  softening  of  the  S. 

Again,  the  v  falls  out  in  Greek  before  a  in  XifiEoi  (for 
XifXEvm),  etc.    So  also  often  in  Latin  n  falls  out  before  S 


as  m 


toties 
quinquies 
cosol 
praBgnas 


for 


u 
(( 

a 


totiens, 
quinquiens, 
consol, 
praegnans,  etc,  etc. 


Now  ^,  being  the  nasal  of  D,  is  much  more  easily  con- 
sonant with  the  d  hiss,  or  soft  S,  than  it  could  be  with 
the  hard  or  normal  S.  We  infer,  then,  that  it  was  the 
hard  S  before  which  the  N  fell  away,  as  in  toties,  while 
that  sound  of  the  S  must  have  been  the  softened  one, 
which  admitted  K  before  it,  in  the  same  syllable,  as  in 
totiens. 

So  that  we  ought  to  give  the  S  soft  in  mens,  amans, 


etc.,  while,  however,  it  remains  hard  as  usual  in  men-sura, 

man-sit,  etc. 

S,  then,  is  normally  and  generally  in  Latin  the  hard 
or  t  hiss,  the  strength  of  which  is  moderated  in  the  end 
of  a  word.  The  hiss  is  transferred  to  the  d  contact  when 
S  occurs  in  the  end  of  a  syllable,  before  a  syllabic  pause, 
and  immediately  preceded  by  the  consonants  n  ov.b. 


T. 


It  will  not  be  thought  necessary  to  adduce  here  proofs 
of  the  normal  power  of  Latin  T.  The  conditions  of  the 
use  of  this  letter  in  Latin  words,  its  appearances  and 
disappearances,  furnish  evidence  coincident  with  that 
which  more  obviously  arises  from  comparing  the  use  of 
the  same  consonant  in  Latin  forms  and  in  corresponding 
forms  of  cognate  languages ;  and  all  this  evidence,  most 
of  which  lies  very  near,  justifies  the  unquestioned  prac- 
tice of  tradition  in  giving  to  Latin  T  the  same  power  as 
that  of  our  own  (lingual-dental  tenuis)  T. 

We  must  infer  that  T  in  the  end  of  words  had  a  weak 
sound ;  and  this  in  the  case  of  polysyllables,  from  a  gen- 
eral regard  to  the  barytone  prosody  of  Latin  words.  But, 
secondly,  evidence  of  the  same  is  also  seen  in  the  dis- 
appearance of  t  from  the  end  of  words  (monosyllables 
included)  during  the  period  antecedent  to  the  time  when 
Latin  words  assumed  their  settled  forms  of  orthography. 
Thus,  to  speak  now  only  of  nouns,  a  t  sound  originally 


I 


IIG 


PRONUNCIATIO^^^     OF     LATIN. 


belonged  to  the  ablative  case,  as  in  dolot  for  dolo,  malot 
for  malo,  capitet  for  capite,  concionet  for  condone,  iuret 
for  iure,  suot  for  suo,  etc.  These  words,  found  in  the 
XII  tables,  were  written,  it  is  true,  dolod,  kapited,  conci- 
oned  (cf.  coventmiid),  ioured,  souod,  etc.  But  this  d 
(representing  Sanscrit  /,  sign  of  the  ablative  case)  was 
sounded,  as  we  have  before  seen,  not  differently  from  t 
There  was  here,  therefore,  a  dropping  of  the  final  t  sound. 
Such  dropping  of  T  becomes  more  striking  proof  of 
the  general  weakness  of  that  letter  in  a  final  situation, 
when  instances  occur  in  which  it  smnetimes  falls  away 
and  sometimes  not  And  this  is  the  case,  for  instance,  in 
the  Haut  and  Hau  (both  for  Hand)  in  MSS.  of  Plautus. 
We  have  therefore  in  ta7igU,  cantat,  mittit,  essentially  the 
same  T  twice,  but  weaker  in  the  last  place.* 

There  is  only  one,  but  that  in  effect  a  very  decided 
corruption  of  T,  which  now  demands  our  attention.  It 
is  maintained  and  very  commonly  admitted  that  already 
in  the  classical  age,  an  assibilation  was  superinduced 
upon  this  letter  by  following  I,  when  the  I  was  followed 
again  by  another  vowel  sound. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  representative  of  this  Latin 
T,  which  appears  in  the  derived  forms  of  modern  lan- 
guages, is  in  them  given  by  some  form  of  a  hiss.  (Latin 
histitia,  Italian  giustizia,  Sj^anish  jusHcia,  French  justice, 


I 


*  It  is  probable  that  final  d  was  practically  not  distinguished  in 
sound  from  final  t.  This  was  argued  before  at  pp.  69,  70.  To  the 
evidence  there  given  we  add  a  remark  from  Phocas'  de  Aspiratione 
(P.  p.  1724\  incidentally  confirming  the  same  point  in  the  case  of 
hand  =  haut.  Adverbium  (baud)  autem  discretionis  causa  dasian 
[H]  habet  praepositam,  ut  ne  cuniunctio  fuerit,  veluti  legimus: 
*Aut  portum  tenet.' 


«      1 


PRONUNCIATION     OF    LATIN. 


117 


etc.,  etc.)  This  fact  used  as  an  argument  requires  the 
assumption  of  a  hissing  sound  for  the  Latin  T  (more 
strictly  TI)  in  the  situation  indicated,  at  a  time  early 
enough  for  the  Latin  letter  to  have  served,  as  it  un- 
doubtedly did,  as  a  common  source  for  the  Spanish  c, 
Italian  z,  French  p,  etc. 

But  as  this  falls  far  short  of  proving  a  hissing  sound 
for  T  in  the  classical  time  of  the  Latin,  other  evidence 
must  be  had  for  the  use  of  such  a  sound  in  that  early 

time. 

Here,  then,  is  to  be  considered  again  that  fluctuation 
in  orthography  between  ci  and  ti  found  by  those  who 
have  had  access  to  ancient  inscriptions,  upon  stones  of 
date  as  ancient  as  the  early  Empire.  The  value  of  this 
phenomenon  as  bearing  upon  the  question  of  a  similar 
hissing  sound  for  both  ci  and  ti  we  have  already  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  letter  C. 

We  ventured  then  to  express  the  opinion  that  the  few 
earliest  observed  interchanges  of  C  and  T  do  not  require  us 
to  suppose  a  third  sound  different  from  the  proper  sound 
of  each  of  these ;  that  is,  that  jiimtius  and  nunkius  might 
have  existed  together  as  dialectic  varieties  (as  moikie  for 
7noitie  in  Canada,  and  'ayKXcd  for  'avrXia  in  modern 
Greek,  etc.).  If  this  is  so,  the  argument  for  a  hissing 
sound  of  either  ci  or  ti  which  is  founded  on  the  inter- 
change of  these  letters,  must  remain  uncertain  until  a 
hissing  sound  is  established  for  either  the  ci  or  ti  upon 

other  grounds. 

Now  this  is  easy  to  do,  in  the  case  of  both,  in  the  late 
and  corrupt  days  of  the  Latin,  but  attended  with  ever- 
increasing  difficulty  (according  to  the  exhibition  of  those 
who  have  had  access  to  the  most  ancient  records)  on  pene- 


1 


1 


|i    1        1'  ■' 


118 


PRONUNCIATIOK    OF    LATIN. 


trating  backward  towards  the  classical  era.  In  default  of 
data  suflBcient  for  a  settled  opinion,  we  cannot  do  more 
than  record  the  conclusion  which  will  generally,  no 
doubt,  be  regarded  as  justly  reached  by  Corssen.  That 
is :  that  the  T  before  I  followed  by  another  vowel  began 
to  be  heard  with  a  hiss  in  the  very  best  times  of  the 
classical  Latin ;  that  the  assibilation  became  more  uni- 
versal as  well  as  more  marked  with  the  advance  of  time. 
As  to  the  sound  itself ;  it  was  in  the  late  Latin  marked 
by  z,  as  in  iustizia,  as  well  as  also  by  Greek  f  and  rf,  by 
ts,  and  by  tc.  Comparing  dova^Lovefi  (for  donationem), 
'aKT^io  (for  actio),  Constantsa  (for  Constantio),  milizia 
(for  militia),  Bincentce  (for  Vincent  ice),  all  late  forms;  we 
see  that  the  hiss  sometimes  was  felt  to  represent  the  T 
only,  sometimes  the  TI  together,  and  that  the  sound 
probably  was  about  that  of  ts  or  tsch— such  a  ts,  e.  g.,  as 
might  be  put  in  place  of  ce  in  the  end  of  English  '  ounce,' 
thus,  ounts ;  or  such  a  tsch  as  might  represent  the  pro- 
nunciation of  te  in  English  "righteous"  thus,  "rlt- 
tschusP 

lustitia,  according  to  this,  would  sound  institsia  or 
iastitschia. 

The  limits  to  the  hissing  sound  of  T  in  ti  must  be 
briefly  stated. 

1.  The  I  must  be  consonantal  I,  and  consequently  short. 
Hence,  when  the  I  is  long,  as,  e.  g,,  in  totiiis,  the  T  has 
the  pure  sound.  Further,  in  Greek  words  (as  Mgyptius), 
as  the  I  is  not  consonantal,  the  T  cannot  be  hissed. 
Again,  in  the  old  infinitive  passive  forms,  as  nitier,  qua- 
tier,^  etc.,  the  I  was  not  consonantal,  as  appears,  and  the 
T  was  not  hissed. 

*  For  we  never  find  nuier,  nitsier,  etc.,  written  for  this  form. 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


119 


2.  For  manifest  natural  reasons  it  is  commonly  agreed 
as  improbable  that  the  T  could  have  been  hissed  when  it 
was  immediately  preceded  by  another  T,  or  by  a  hiss,  as 
S  or  X.     (See  Zumpt's  Lat.  Gr.,  p.  7. 


Notwithstanding  a  dispute  which  has  caused  some 
doubt  concerning  the  time  when  X  was  adopted  into 
the  Latin  alphabet,  and  notwithstanding  that  some 
writers  have  wished  to  fix  this  as  late  as  the  time  of 
Augustus,  yet  it  is  certain  that  X  appears  in  the  oldest 
records  of  Latin  which  have  been  preserved  to  us ;  and 
many  facts  might  be  adduced  to  prove  that  the  letter 
was  commonly,  if  not  universally,  used  throughout  the 
classical  period.  Quintilian  (Lib.  I,  c.  4,  §  9)  makes  allu- 
sion to  X  as  occupying  the  last  place  in  the  Latin  "  com- 
pendium," or  alphabet :  and  as  to  the  power  of  the  letter, 
the  same  author  remarks,  that  the  sign  was  not  indis- 
pensable for  use  in  the  Latin.  That  implies,  of  course, 
that  its  office  could  be  fully  performed  by  other  means 
at  the  disposal  of  the  Latin  alphabet.  Accordingly,  all 
the  Grammarians  affirm,  and  their  declaration  is  abun- 
dantly confirmed  by  collateral  evidence,  that  X  was  a 
monogram  representing  the  combination  CS  or  GS.  So 
perfect  was  the  equivalence  that  many,  especially  in 
earlier  times,  thought  proper  always  to  write  cs  or  gs 
instead  of  resorting  to  the  simpler  figure.    And  Nigidius 


I  ^ 


irj 


if 


120 


PRONUNCIATION    OF    LATIN. 


Figulus,  the  learned  linguist  and  Latin  purist  of  the  time 
of  Varro  and  Cicero,  is  said  never  to  have  used  the  X. 
(See  Mar.  Victorinus,  P.  pp.  2456  and  2466.) 

Max.  Victorinus  (P.  p.  1945,  Lind.  277) :  Ex  his  (semi- 
vocalibus)  duplex  est  x :  constat  enim  aut  ex  ^  et  5 
literis,  aut  ex  c  et  s,  ut  puta  rex,  regis ;  2nx,  picis. 
Quippe  ante  x  literam,  quaa  postea  in  compendium 

'  inventa  est,  rex  per  gs  \regs\,  item  pix  per  cs  [pics] 
veteres  scribebant. 

Turning  now  to  the  monumental  records  (Corssen  I, 
p.  124),  we  find  that  indiscriminately  throughout  the 
classical  time  it  was  common  to  find  such  forms  as  saxsum, 
maxsmne,  j^roxsimum,  deduxsit,  faxsit,  etc.  In  this  we  see 
evidence  that  the  S  element  of  the  X  was  heard  as 
sharply  as  possible,  and  in  that  point  there  is  no  dis- 
tinction observed  between  the  X  which  stood  for  gs  and 
the  X  Avhich  stood  for  cs.  Further,  from  what  we  know 
of  the  nature  of  G  we  are  prepared  to  believe  that  when 
thus  closely  combined  with  s,  the  sound  would  be  vir- 
tually, in  all  probability,  precisely  the  same  as  that  of 
the  c  element  in  cs. 

We  do  not  therefore  suppose  two  sounds,  one  harder 
and  one  softer  for  Latin  X,  but  believe  that  during  the 
classical  age  that  letter  was  sounded  like  our  own  sharp 
X  in  '^mixP 


\ 


J 


PBON UNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


121 


z. 


In  the  case  of  Z,  as  once  before  also,  in  the  case  of  Y, 
we  have  to  consider  the  sound  of  a  Greek  letter  as  it  was 
heard  among  the  Romans ;  who  employed  it  sometimes 
in  the  rendering  of  Greek  words.    X  was  the  twenty-first 
and  last  letter  of  the  Latin  alphabet  for  the  Ciceronian  * 
and  later  classical  age ;  and  however  true  it  may  be  that 
the  Z  was  not  unknown  to  Latin  usage  at  a  much  earlier 
date  (see  Vel.  Long.,  P.  p.  2216,  and  Agn.  Cornut,  p. 
2286),  yet  it  is  plain  that  the  common  consciousness  of 
the  classical  age  was  quite  unmindful  of  any  importance 
belonging  to  such  an  historical  fact,  if,  indeed,  its  exist- 
ence was  thought  of.     Certain  it  is,  that  during  the 
period  of  which  we  have  to  speak;  Z  was  recognized  as  a 
Greek  letter.    So  the  Grammarians : 

Asper  Junior  (P.  p.  1725):  Sunt  autem  ....  literge 
latino  sermon!  accommodatae  una  et  viginti,  quibus 
Grsecorum  accedunt  duae  z^i  y;  nam  Mezentiim  et 
Hylam  et  alia  nobis  peregrina  nomina  scribere  et 
enunciare  proprio  sono  non  possumus. 

Domt.  (P.  p.  1737,  Lind.  L,  p.  6) :  Y  et  z  remanent,  quas 
litteras  propter  Graeca  nomina  admisimus. 

Diomed.  (P.  p.  421) :  Z  consonans  semivocalis  duplex 
grgeca,  quse  propter  graeca  vel  barbara  nomina  ad- 
mittitur,   ut:    Zcnon,   Zacynthus,   Mezcnfivs,    gaza. 

*  Cf.  Cic.  de  Nat.  Deor,,  II,  c.  37. 


:iH 


^i  tl 


122  r  R  0  X  U  N  C  I  A  T  I  0  X     OF     L  A  T  I  K . 

Pro  hac  veteres  duabns  ss  utebantur,  ut  Messentius, 
et  pitisso,  tablissOf  etc. 

Our  question  then  is :  How  did  the  Romans  sound  the 
Greek  Zeta  ?  Without  doubt,  as  the  Greeks  themselves 
did.  But  this  is  an  answer  satisfactory  to  those  only 
who,  independently  of  this  our  inquiry,  know  Avhat  the 
sound  of  Greek  Zeta  was. 

The  statements  of  the  Latin  Grammarians  are,  upon 
their  face,  so  perplexing  and  inconsistent  touching  the 
power  of  this  letter,  that  a  reconciliation  of  their  views 
upon  any  likely  hypothesis  seems  at  first  almost  hope- 
less. 

As  Diomedes  above,  so  Agyimus  Cornutus  (P.  p.  2'2S(d) 
says:  ....  pro  ilia  [Z]  [in  aatiquis  lihris)  ss  pone- 
ban  tur,  ut :  crotalizo,  crotalisso  ;  tiialicizo,  inalacissOy 
et  his  similia. 

VeL  Long.  (P.  p.  2217) :  Mihi  videtur  ....  esse  aliud 
z,  aliud  sigma  .... 

Taking  ss  to  represent  only  strong,  clear,  decided  s  ; 
these  statements  say,  the  first  that  z  is  (or  ivas  virtually 
considered  to  be)  equal  to  s ;  the  second  that  z  is  7wi 
(at  least  not  properly)  equal  to  s. 

Again,  in  Vel.  Long.  (P.  p.  2216),  we  have  the  report 
of  Verrius  Flaccus,  that  it  was  the  opinion  of  some  in 
his  time,  that  z  consisted  of  a  and  6.     (sd.) 

So  3fax.  Victorinus  (P.  p.  1945,  Lind.  I,  277) :  Literae 
peregrinae  sunt  Z  et  Y,  quae  peregrinae  a  nobis  prop- 
ter Graeca  quaedam  nomina  assumptae  sunt,  ut  Hylas, 
Zephyrus ;   quae  si  non  essent,  Hoelas,  et  Sdephirus 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


123 


diceremus.  —  Mezentium  per  s  et  d   Mesdentium 
scriberemus. 

On  the  other  hand.  Mar.  Victorinus  (P.  p.  2453) :  Sic 
et  z,  si  modo  latino  sermoni  necessaria  esset,  per  d  et 
s  literas  faceremus.     {ds.) 

Further,  Prisciafi  (P.  p.  552):  Antiquissimi  quoque 
Mcdentius  dicebant  pro :  Mezentius. 

But,  Vcl.  Long  us  (P.  p.  2217):  Scribe  enim  per  unum 
Z,  et   consule    aurem ;    non   erit   d^rjxag  quomodo 

ddexag ;— . 

Thus  ^ye  have  here  these  statements : 

1.  Z  Avas  anciently  represented  in  Latin  by  ss :  hut  it 
was  not  equivalent  to  pure  s. 

2.  Some  persons  in  ancient  times  put  a  d  in  the  place 
of  z  in  foreign  words:  but  if  the  ear  be  consulted,  d  will 
not  give  the  proper  sound. 

3.  A  third  way  which  seemed  proper  to  many  for 
exhibiting  the  phonetic  power  of  z  was  a  combination  of 
the  two  just  named;  they  wrote  it  by  sd;  but  others 
gave  it  by  ds. 

Now  it  appears  to  us  that  there  is  only  one  hypothesis 
upon  which  may  be  reconciled  and  harmonized  so  many 
diverse  endeavors  to  indicate  the  same  sound ;  and  that 
hypothesis  is  the  assumption  that  the  sound  intended  was 
that  of  Modern  Greek  Zeta  and  Etiglish  z.  Submitting 
this  sound  to  the  test,  we  find— 

1.  No  surprise  in  seeing  it  represented  by  the  cognate 


m 


.ill 


1:^4 


PRONUNCIATION     OF     LATIN. 


II 


>S,*  and  are  at  the  same  time  quite  ready  to  be  told  that 
it  is  not  sigma,  or  pure  8. 

2.  If  we  remember  that  our  Z  or  soft  S  is  a  d-hiss,  or  a 
hiss  passed  over  the  tongue  when  just  ready  to  finish  the 
d-contact,  it  will  not  be  strange  that  some  more  mindful 
of  this  last  condition  of  the  utterance,  should  have  sought 
to  characterize  it  by  the  d  alone  (these  not  feeling  that 
the  z  was  a  double  consonant).  Others,  of  course,  would 
be  discerning  enough  to  see  that  d  could  not  be  a  true 
and  complete  mark  of  the  sound. 

3.  Others  again  might  naturally  think  it  best  and  right 
to  represent  both  the  hiss  and  the  d-attitude  of  the 
tongue.  The  interesting  fact  that  both  sd  and  ds  were 
employed  to  render  it,  seems  to  indicate  this  as  the  only 
aim  of  those  who  wrote  so :  that  is,  that  each  of  these 
compounds  were  intended  as  modes  of  indicating  a 
d-hiss;  the  one  meaning,  as  it  were,  a  hissed  d,  the 
other  a  d  hissed. 

Finally,  when  almost  all  the  ancient  Grammarians 
agree  in  calling  Z  a  double  consonant,  we  feel  obliged 
to  regard  this  as  an  imperfect  and  inaccurate  observation ; 
in  which  view  we  have  the  support  of  Velius  Longus, 
wiio  says  (P.  p.  2217) :  Denique  siquis  secundum  naturam 
vult  excutere  heme  literam,  id  est  Z,  inveniet  diiplicem  non 
esse,  si  modo  illam  aure  sinceriore  exploraverit.  In  our 
opinion,  therefore, 

Latin  Z  =  English  Z. 


See  Appendix,  Note  N. 


PRONUNCIATION    OF     LATIN. 


125 


I 


Ch,  Ph,  Th,   Rh. 

With  respect  to  these  combinations  it  will  be  enough 
to  report  the  statement  of  Diomedes  and  Pnscian. 

Diomedes  (P.  p.  417)  says:  ^quoque  -terdum  con- 
nans  intcrdum  aspirationis  creditur  nota.  H«c  si  c 
r2  subjuncta  fuerit,  x  -tat  gr^cam :  si  ,  pr^po- 
Ta  f ueri!  ,  significat.    Item  si  t  pr^posxta  u^n 

aspiriationi,  pro  «  ^^^^^J^^^:^ 
positee  1/-  graecam  affeiunt.      osett^ruiu 
nunquam  snpponitur  nisi  in  intenectione  «/*. 

Priscian  (P.  p.  543) :   Sciendum  tamen,  quod  hie  quo- 
nue  error  a  quibusdam  antiquis  Gr«.corum  gramma, 
ticis  invasit  Latinos,  qui  ^  X  ^  semivocales  putabant ; 
nulla  alia  causa,  nisi  quod  spiritus  m  eis  abundet 
inducti.    Quod  si  esset  verum,  debuit  c  quoque  vel  t 
addita   aspiratione,    semivocalis    esse;    quod    omn, 
caret  ratione.    Spiritus  enim  potestatem  liter*  non 
mutat:   unde  nee  vocales   addita   aspiratione  ali« 
sunt,  ot  ali*  ea  adempta.    Hoe  tamen  scire  debemus, 
nuodnontam  fixis  labris  est  pronuneianda /,  quo- 
modo ph :  atque  hoc  solum  interest  inter/  et  ph. 

Ch,  ph,  th,  and  Tl,  therefore,  are  nothing  but  c  p,  t, 
and  r  with  the  subaddition  of  /.,  which  does  -  change 
L  nature  and  power  of  the  previous  part  of  the  com- 
Wion.    Accordingly,  oU  was  sounded  like  H  m  Mor« 


12G 


PROXUKCIATION    OF    LATIl^. 


(remains  of  English  ink-horn),  and  so  for  the  others,  so 
that 


ch  was  sounded  like  ch  in  Sanscrit  chanda,  aclianda, 
1'^'    "        "  "    y^  "        "        phalla,     ntphulla, 

^^     "        "  "    th  "        "        citha,      thurvami, 

r^    "        "  "    P    "  Greek     Tw, 


"appriv. 


III 

I 


m 


o 


vi 


cd 


G) 


O 


o> 


J>BONUN 


CIATION    OF    LATir 


I 


:a> 


» 


W 


£  cj   p;    e 

^  S  w   .r  ^ 
2  fe   S  i^  ^. 


^ 


^  ^^  gis  s  g  g  §?  o 


Ph    <J    H    h^    jJ    *|    jj      . 


QQ 


o  w 


-  fe 


vx 


m 


<*-( 


^    (SS    Ph 


Q     P     ^1     P^     Ph     frt    1^ 


S   ^     ^^     ^ 


O    W    P       < 


PQ 


<u 


72      %•  <• 


03 


02 


a; 


S 

«    -  c 


O 


^    H   ^ 


3     rP 


O'  r— t    as 


83  »— ' 

-  0) 


S     =iSl|S^^££«§SS«£      6 


fl    -      '2     rt    2      -      5       2 


lU 


« 


0) 


a> 


<03 


e 

■-g  fc       P-r^^        g     <3^     "&      E        O     'p. 


a 

o      ^ 


•C    oj 


o 


5    5  <d  .t! 


<y    o  ,0    w 


n3  "tS    P<   s3 


s  s 


«♦-( 


o 


a> 

tie 


8 


127 


£ 


« 

N 


« 


e 


o 


a 

p. 


OQ 


O) 


OQ 


>•<••>• 


P  xn  CH 

•So     ^  g 


o 


u 


^   O     c3 


CD 


*S     1^     >«      l<»     J^      !«»     *^      '^ 


?^       S 


o 


OS 


Si,"^ 


i-2S 


S 

El] 


o 


a 
a 

as 


^      O 


a 

a 
a 

0) 


PROX  UXCl  ATIO  X     OF     LATIX. 


a; 


02 


C 
•^ 

cd 


8 


o 
Pi 


s 

i 


be 


c3  O  e3  *J~ 


32   -M     " 


P 

o  ?i 
111    o 


o 


Hi 


o 
o 

-si 


X! 

o 

o 


-^ 

s 
s 

< 

s 


^ 
^ 


» 


^ 


& 


as 


>H  .p-4 

s  . 

c 


c 


cS 


CO 


.-4         •-<  ^ 


C   - 


33     O     sS 

W  ^  S 


N*  V* 


'3 


t^    ^  l2    i^ 


-d 
tf 

Cj 


=5 


® 
<?3 


■~N   — 


-d 
<«       o         ^- 

.S  ^  —  £*      s 


OS 


-fa 

o 

CD 

S 
O 
a 


Ph 


o 


o 
^ 

sS 

5 

CJ 

a, 

133 

oJ 

03 

s 

PQ 

a* 

cr 

03      •rH 


'd 

c3 

o 


CO 


•s  •^• 


>     CD 


.3  OJ 


83 


APPENDIX. 


Note  A,  page  40. 

On  the  sound  of  u  after,  and  in  the  same  syllable  with  s,  g,q. 

That  the  combination  su  sounded  like  English  sic,  and  not  like 
English  sv  (therefore,  sicaris,  etc.^,  is  very  strongly  confirmed  by  an 
examination  of  such  words  as,  anterior  to  their  life  in  the  Latin 
speech,  contained  the  sound  sv.  There  are  numbers  of  such.  And 
if  we  compare,  e.  g., 

Sanscrit  svas         with  Latin  suus, 
svasar        "        "      soror, 
svapnas      "        "       somnus, 
svedas        "        "      sudor. 


*t 

a 
u 


and  many  other  forms,  we  see  that  the  Latin  was  averse  to  the 
connection  8i\  when  v  was  a  full  consonant.     To  avoid  that  con- 
nection, the  Latin  proceeded  to  reduce  the  given  forms  to  its  own 
preferred  softer  sound,  either  by  rejecting  the  v  altogether,  as  in 
the  above  examples  except  the  first,  or  by  investing  the  v  with  the 
character  of  a  vowel,  as  in  suus  for  svas  (although  in  old  Latin  the 
forms  SOS,  sis,  etc.,  for  suus,  suis,  etc.,  are  said  to  be  found  also). 
Now  then,  when,  corresponding  to  Sanscrit  smdus,  we  have  Latin 
suatis,  it  is  certainly  to  be  presumed  that  the  u  of  suavis  is  not 
sounded  like  English  r,  but  that  the  utmost  approach  to  a  conso- 
nantal  sound  will  be  represented  by  the  English  ic,  like  the  vowel 
^t  m  quattuor  (when  that  word  is  pronounced  with  two  syllables). 
y  after  t  is  also  inadmissible  in  Latin,  as  is  well  shown  in  an 
mteresting  article  by  Grassmann,  in  Kuhn's  Zeitschrift  fiir  Ver- 
gleichende  Sprachforschung,  Vol.  I,  p.  1  and  after,  where  he  seeks 
to  extend  the  same  obsermtion  to  kv  (gv)  (gv). 


A  P  P  E  iH  D I X . 


131 


Thus  [f  in  Sanscrit  being  represented  by  the  guttural  tenuis 
(k,  c,  q)  in  Latin],  Sanscrit  ^van,  dog,  would  give  Latin  qvanis,  or 
kvanis  {cvanis) ;  but  the  Latin  will  not  have  a  «  so  situated,  and 
drops  it,  leaving  canis.  Again,  when  ^vas  passes  into  Latin  the  v 
is  changed  to  r,  and  we  get  eras :  so  also  with  cvi,  to  grow,  from 
which  the  Latin  has  (not  qves-co  but)  cresco.  And  in  the  Latin 
rendering  of  Sanscrit  a^vas,  another  mode  of  avoiding  cv  (or  qv)  is 
adopted,  that  namely  of  localizing  the  v  ;  for  so  we  get  equus.  Now 
this  equus  is  a  perfect  parallel  to  suus  in  respect  of  the  value  and 
origin  of  its  first  u  ;  and  from  the  point  of  view  furnished  by  com- 
parative grammar,  no  one  has  more  reason  for  supposing  u  to  be 
silent  in  equus,  than  may  be  alleged  for  its  silence  in  svus,  svavium, 
quattuor.  And  further,  if,  confining  the  view  to  the  Latin  alone, 
it  be  insisted  that  there  is  direct  testimony  to  the  fact  (in  Pris- 
cian)  that  equus  was  sounded  equs  (or  ecus),  this  may  be  admitted, 
as  well  as  some  other  (even  numerous  other)  instances  of  the  same 
sound  as  indicated  by  oculus  and  oquliis,  secutus  and  sequutus,  etc. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  can  show  also  the  forms  sos,  sis,  for  suus, 
suis,  savium  for  suavium,  quattor  for  quattuor,  urgeo  for  urgueo ; 
and  are  we,  therefore,  emry where  to  pronounce,  e.  g.,  sus,  sam,  for 
suus,  suam  ;  satis,  sesco,  for  suavis,  suesco  ;  angis,  linga,  for  anguis, 
lingua  ?    All  as  reasonably  as  torket  for  torquet. 


Note  B,  page  57.     (^.) 


Gellius,  XVI,  12,  8 :  M.  Varro  .  .  .  .  M.  Catonem  et  ceteros 
setatis  eius  *  feneratorem '  sine  a  litera  pronuntiasse  tradit,  sicuti 
'fetus '  ipse  et  'fecunditas '  appellata. 

A  very  instructive  passage  on  the  sound  of  m  occurs  in  Quint.  I, 
5,  17.  It  would  occupy  too  much  space  to  develop  all  that  it 
implies.  The  principal  point  is  that  the  cb  of  Asice,  etc.,  ought  not 
to  be  spoken  with  "  ditislo,"  i.  e.,  so  that  both  elements  be  distinctly 
heard ;  while  on  the  other  hand  the  ce  of  Phcpthon  {'^afffuv)  ought 
to  be  so  sounded,  but  that  nevertheless  P.  Varro  had  rendered  this 
Greek  name  per  "  complexionem,'  i.  e.,  giving  the  m  in  one  sound 
(therefore,  Phcethon  =  Phethon).    Notice  the  accent  of  ^atOuv. 


i! 


132  A  r  r  p:  X  i)  1  X . 


XoTE  C,  page  57. 

Tlie  following  words  of  Varro  seem  to  indicate,  first,  a  difference 
between  the  sounds  of  ca  and  of  e,  and  second,  that  that  difference 
was  veri/  small. 

Varro,  L.  L.,  Lib.  6,  c.  5 :  Ohscctnum  dictum  a  scena,  ut  Grseci 
(lis  enim  gkj]vii  dicitur).  Ea  (ut  Accius  scribit)  scaona.  In 
pluribus  rectis  A  ante  E  alii  ponunt,  alii  non ;  ut,  quod  partim 
dicunt  scccptrum,  partim  dicunt  secptrnm. 


Note  D,  page  58. 

There  are  a  few  instances  also  of  tlie  settlement  of  au  into  the 
Bound  of  its  first  element  a.  For  such  is  the  history  of  the  first  syl- 
lable of  arrugia  from  rt?r?*«m,and  Arnintius{2i\so  spelled  Aruntius) 
from  Aurunca,  a  town  of  Campania.  [Arruntiiis  is  for  Arrunciua 
(cf.  Attius,  Accius),  an  enlargement  of  Amincus,  (cf.  Atus,  Attiiis, 
Appius,  Serous,  Serviu^,  TuUus,  TuUius).'\  Cf.  Aurunculeius  formed 
on  the  same  stem. 


Note  E,  page  64.    {(E.) 

Max.  Victorinus  (p.  1945)  (Lind.  I,  277)  says :  *'  We  have  taken 
from  the  Greek  Y  and  Z  for  the  spelling  of  Greek  words,  as  e.  g., 
Hylas,  Zephyrus.  If  we  had  not  done  this  we  should  have  said 
JIaias  and  Sdephirus.^'  If  the  Greek  T  was  what  we  hold  it  to  be 
(nearly  the  French  a),  and  this  ce  of  Haiaa  was  no  nearer  to  it  than 
the  Sd  of  Sdephirus  was  to  the  true  sound  of  Z ;  then  our  assump- 
tion for  the  normal  sound  of  oe  is,  to  say  the  least,  not  weakened  by 
the  above  declai-ation.  It  should  have  its  weight,  however,  in 
assisting  our  estimate  of  the  true  tone  of  the  diphthong,  which  we 
have  not  felt  entitled  to  indicate  more  definitely  than  by  supposing 
it  nearly  like  that  of  German  Oe  in  Oel, 


APPENDIX.  133 


Note  F,  page  67. 

The  affinity  of  B  with  V  (Digamma)  was,  however,  not  obscurely 
felt  in  early  times  also.  Priscian,  ap.  P.  p.  709  :  "  Habebat  haec  F 
litera  sonum  quern  nunc  habet  V,  loco  consonantis  posita,  unde 
antiqui  (before  the  classic  period)  AF  pro  AB  scribere  solebant, 
....  Siflum  quoque  pro  Sibilum,  teste  Nonio  Marcello  de  doc- 
torum  indagine,  dicebant." 


Note  G,  page  72. 

In  favor  of  this  double  sound  may  be  adduced  on  authority  of 
MSS.  the  forms  Atus  and  (feminine)  Aca  (and  Attus,  Area),  natta 
and  naeca,  also  nact<(,  stloppus  and  scloppus  (?).  Here  there  can  be 
no  idea  of  a  compromise  by  a  hiss  for  the  c  and  t.  And  before  any 
one  will  undertake  to  say  that  there  is  any  reason  in  the  general 
principles  of  Phonetics,  any  physiological  or  other  natural  difficulty 
in  the  contemporaneous  employment  of  two  such  different  sounds 
as  /j  and  t  in  the  same  word,  he  should  consider  some  facts  stated 
by  Max  Miiller  (Sci.  Lang.,  2d  Ser.,  pp.  181,  182):  "No  two  conso- 
nants would  seem  to  be  more  distinct  than  k  and  t.  Nevertheless, 
in  the  language  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  these  two  sounds  run  into 
one,  and  it  seems  impossible  for  a  foreigner  to  say  whether  what  he 
hears  is  a  guttural  or  a  dental.  The  same  word  is  written  by 
Protestant  missionaries  with  k,  by  French  missionaries  with  t" 
Again,  "  we  are  told  by  careful  observers  that  the  lower  classes  in 
Canada  habitually  confound  t  and  k,  and  say  mekier,  moikie,  for 
metier,  moitie." 

Consider  also  the  interchange  of  the  equally  diverse  guttural  and 
palatal  k  and  p,  as  in  (Sanscrit  paC-ami)  Greek  tzeU-tu,  Latin  {pop- 
ina  and)  coQu-o. 


Note  H,  page  83. 


The  Greeks  separated  their  sign  into  /-  and  -/>  its  two  elements, 
to  serve,  the  one  of  them  for  the  daaela,  and  the  other  for  the  fL^.jj. 


13^ 


APPENDIX. 


f  became  L  and  ^ ;  y^  similarly,  -J  and  ^.  Priscian  (P.  p.  1287) : 
Quid  est  Dasea  ?  Flatilis,  quae  liac  notatur  figura  /-.  Quid  est  Psile  ? 
Siccitas,  quae  notatur  sic,  -/,  The  Latins  evidently  considered  the 
-ipLAii  as  practically  equivalent  to  nothing.  Cf.  Phocas  ;  de  Aspirat. 
Segm  II,  ap.  Lindeman.  Omnia  quae  post  i,  a  fuerint  habentia, 
c«re?i^  aspiratione,  \it  Janus.  So  also:  ordo  ignorat  aspirationem ; 
Ilian  we^a^  .dasian. 


i 


Note  I,  page  87. 

It  must  be  noticed  that  the  organic  character  or  ancient  title  of 
the  H  did  not  protect  it  even  in  early  times  from  dissipation ;  thus 
ml  for  mihi  corresponding  to  Sanscrit  mahyam  ;  nil  for  nihil,  from 
ne  Mum.  Hilum  probably  =  filum  (and  not  as  is  commonly  said 
ioTpilus)\We  harena  corresponding  to  ^'dh'me  fassna ;  made  also 
arena  in  Latin.  In  cedus  (cedus)  for  ha!dus  (Quint.)  the  lost  h  was 
organic  substitute  for  //,  as  seen  in  Gothic  gaits,  old  high  German 
geiz.  (Cf .  Corssen's  Aussp.,  p.  47 ;  and  Lottner  in  Kulin's  Zeitsch. 
f.  Vergl.  Spraclif.,  Vol.  7,  p.  184,  sqq.) 


XOTE  K,  page   91. 


Xo  evidence  of  an  L  mouille  in  Latin  has  appeared  to  our  investi- 
gation ;  but  rather  proof  could  be  offered,  if  there  were  space  for  it, 
that  Latin  L  was  in  all  places  essentially  the  same.  This  much  we 
may  say,  that  the  appearance  of  alius  compared  with  Greek  u'a'aoc, 
and  milia  by  the  side  of  mUlia  is  no  sign  of  the  vocalization  of  an  L. 
In  the  first  case,  it  is  the  second  a  of  a/.Aoi;-  which  needs  to  be 
accounted  for,  and  not  the  i  of  alius,  which  is  the  more  immediate 
representation  of  the  Sanscrit  y  in  any  as;  and  in  the  second  case, 
there  is  no  vocalization,  but  a  falling  away  of  I.  Among  the 
instances  of  the  doubling  of  a  consonant,  i.  e.,  of  course,  giving  the 
same  consonant  twice,  Victorinus  mentions  I,  without  any  mark  of 
a  distinction  between  it  and  other  consonants  in  this  respect.  The 
doubling,  namely,  was  employed  simply  to  give  strength  to  the 


APPENDIX. 


135 


consonantal  element,  or  to  fortify  the  length  of  the  previous  vowel. 
Victorinus  (p.  2456):  Annius,  Lucullus,  Memmino.  So  was  reUigio 
sometimes  written  just  as  Juppiter,  and  puUus  (from  puerulus) 
just  iiBpuppus. 


d 


Note  L,  page  93. 

This  blunting,  deadening,  more  or  less  complete  suppression  of 
the  closing  M,  may  be  fitly  compared  with  the  Sanscrit  Anuswara, 
which  also  had  its  origin  in  the  M  sound.  The  dt  adening  of  the 
Latin  M  seems,  however,  to  have  gone  farther  than  the  Anuswara, 
since  in  its  highest  instance  it  involved  the  almost  complete  enerva- 
tion and  obliteration  of  the  foregoing  vowel ;  so  that,  in  place  of 
J)Oth  consonant  and  vowel,  there  was  often  left  only  a  sort  of  "  after- 
noise,"  or  weak,  irrational  utterance,  which  is  represented  by  e  in 
dice,  etc.,  which  the  ancient  llomans  (in  Cato's  time)  spoke  and 
wrote  for  dicam,  etc.  (Vid.  Quintil.  IX,  4,  and  Jordan's  Catoim 
Beliqq.,  p.  90.)  This  e  was  probably  n^xt  to  nothing,  as  it  was  also 
in  the  imperative  form  dice,  before  this  fell  to  die.  (Vid.  Naev. 
Reliqq.,  ap.  Ribbeck,  p.  69.)  But  as  the  Anuswara  made  position 
in  poetry,  so  also  the  Latin  final  M,  if  it  was  followed  in  a  verse  by 
a  consonant,  was  restored  to  the  proper  functions  of  a  consonant 
(not  clear  M,  but  a  consonant),  while  the  vowel  before  it  also 
resumed  its  characteristic  color  and  power. 


Note  M,  page  107. 

It  is  said  that  on  a  wall  in  Pompeii  was  found  scribbled  : 
ALMA  VILVMQ.   CANO   TLO 


Note  N,  page  124. 


It  must  be  admitted  that  the  choice  of  ss  instead  of  simple  8  for 
representing  s  in  the  middle  of  a  word  seems  to  militate  against 


136 


APPENDIX. 


the  soft  sound  of  z  which  we  contemplate.  Whilst  we  do  not  feel 
able  to  remove  this  difficulty  satisfactorily,  we  can  at  least  elimi- 
nate it  from  the  present  discussion  by  remarking  that  the  objection 
found  here  will  lie  in  all  cases  with  equal  strength,  and  in  some 
cases  with  much  greater  strength,  against  any  of  the  other  sup- 
posed sounds  of  z,  except  the  very  one  of  sharp  s  itself. 


NaliOTial  Series  of  Standard  School-Books, 

PUBLISHED   CY 

A.   S.   BARNES  &  COMPANY. 

IBs  ^s&s' w^M»^  ^Vi^^^^^^ 

0  ursi "  .,       .    ^      .^„,      Each  volume,  amonr,  so  many,  maintains  the  general  stand- 

The  Series  ia  umformhj  f^f^j^']^-  .^^ound  the  perfect  whole. 
a.d  of  m.rit,  and  assists   y.  us  pUcco  round^  ^dio^ojy 


nd  aSr.r.  jts  place,    o  ^-"^  the  per: ^-^^^^^^  ^,^,^  andhy  ecery  c/a^. 


airly  represeatthe  whole.  ^ ^ TITifl 

nwn  I  imWl  "'"'"^I^'EPSSiENT  READERS  &  SPELLERS. 

^^Sne?;  rS?.  i.elf.  and  of  high  and  lower  --^^ ^^^^L  .  ^,p. 

TllVlP.S'  Complete  Unified  ''West  Poiijt  Course"  in  ffiAltlfcMilU. 

iJliVlJCiO     ^O'l^H-^;^        I  Geometry,  Calculus,  Surveying,  and  all  branches. 

Including  Anthraelics,  Algebra,  ueomeiry,  v.  fiPfinD  A  "DUV 

MOKTEiTH  &  McsALLrs  ^-:ii,!r:!JLH5?ff ''• 

Three  books,  with  optional  volumeb.    Tlub  is  the  on  j  --^,  ,qtt     pT)  A  MM  A  D 

nUfi]['S    Diagram   Systeq   for   Leari)ii)g  ENljLlbU  llKAmMn. 

OlJlluIiW      Uldgi*";        •'^   ,  ,^      ..H^-  also  Analysis.  Key  and  Chart  separate. 

Two  Grammars  (Primary  and  Advanced),  also  Analjsis.       ^  UTQfPnDV 

RUBHPS'  Series  of  Brief  Books  for  One  Tern^  of  Study  iq   tllOlUtll. 

BMWliO      ^^^^^^  ,  V  u  ^  •    IR-l      A  General  History  and  others  to  follow  at  once. 

United  States  History,  published  m  18.1.    A  General  H      ^  QnTT?K[PP 

QTPPTP'S  < Fourteen  Weeks"  in  eacljbraijcb  of  MAlUllAL  OUimiUri, 

OlbliLDO       rOUlietJU  _^        .^Jogynowwady.     Physiology  in  press. 

Philosophy,  Chemistry,  Astronomy,  and  Geology  now       J|  AUPTTArr 

WnRMMl'S  Popular  Method  for  Teachiijg  tUKhlljlK  LMlJUAUli. 

VI  UlllUllW  0     ^"F"  *  p^.,„ch  series  happily  commenced. 

A  German  Series  is  now  nearlj  complete,  anu 


WILLARD'S  Course  of  History. 
PECK'S  GANOT  S  Natural  Philosophy. 
JARVIS'  Physiology  and  Health. 
WOOD'S  Text-Books  in  Botany. 
PORTER'S  Principles  of  Chemistry. 
'CHAMBERS'  Elements  of  Zoology. 
PAGE'S  Elements  of  Geology. 
BEERS'  Round-band  Penmanship. 
SMITH'S  Orthography  and  Etymology. 

BOYD'S  Course  in  English  Literature. 

SMITH  U  MARTIN'S  Bookkeeping. 

PAYSON.  DUNTON  &  CO.'S  Writing.. 

A  MDREVyS  &  STODDARD'S  Latin  Series 

CROSBY'S  Greek  Series. 

PUJOL'S  Complete  French  Class  Book. 

ROOT'S  School  Music-Books. 


SEARING'S  Virgil  and  Classical  Tex   » 
CLEVELAND'S  Compendiums. 
CHAPMAN'S  American  Drawing. 
MANSFIELD'S  Political  Manual. 
NORTHEND'S  Graded  Speakers. 
CHAMPLIN'S  Political  Economy. 
BERARD'S  History  of  England. 
SHERWOOD'S  Writing  Spefler. 
BROOKFIELD'S  Child's  Composition. 
TRACY'S  SchoDi  Record. 
PECK'S  Applied  Mathematics. 
CHURCH'S  Hgher  Mathematics. 
BARTLETT'S  College  Philosophy. 
MAHAN'S  Mental  Science. 
ALDEN'S  Text-Book  of  Ethics. 
BROOKS'  School  Devotion. 


ANY  BOOK  SEOT'i^i^^S^  RECEIPT^OF  ITS  PRICE. 


-fitr 


Who  would  know  more  of  this  unrivaled  Series  shotM  -'^"«"!{5'^*'fg;£TSTR'5SEi?3^^L^^^ 
TIVE  CATALOGUE,^  free.  to.  Teachers ;  others    W^^^^^       f^ii  of  instruction  for  Teachers;  su^ 
TIONAL  BULLETIN,  periodical  organ  of  the  f  umisner. , 
acription,  10  cents;  sample  free.    Address  m.!*««VN 

A.  S.  BAKNES  &  COMPANY.  New  York,  or  Chicago. 


TheJ\,\aioiHd  Series  of  Standard  Sc/iool-  TJooks, ' 


MENTAL    PHILOSOPHY, 

Mahan's  Intellectual  Philosophy      ...    $1  75 

The  subject  exhaustively  considered.     The  author  has  evinced  learn- 
mg,  candor,  aud  independent  thinking. 

Mahan's  Science  of  Logic 2  00 

A  profuund  analysis  of  the  laws  of  tliotight.     The  system  possesses  the 
merit  of  being  intelligible  and  self  consistent.     In  addition  to  the  author's 
c;irefully  elaborated  views,   it  embraces  results  attained   by  the  ablest 
innids  of  Great  Britain,  Germany,  and  France,  in  this  department. 

Boyd's  Elements  of  Logic 1  25 

A  systematic  and  philosopliic  condensation  of  the  subject,  fortified  with 
additions  from  Watts,  Abercrombie,  Whately,  &c. 

Watts  on  the  Mind 

The  Improvement  of  the  Mind,  by  Isaac  Watts,  is  designed  as  a  guide 
for  tne  atUmment  of  useful  knowledge.  As  a  text-book  it  is  unparalleled  ; 
and  the  discipline  it  affords  cannot  be  too  highly  esteemed  by  the  edu- 
cator.  ' 


50 


MORALS. 


-•••- 


Alden's  Text-Book  of  Ethics 

For  young  pupils.  To  aid  in  systematizing  the  ethical  teachings  of 
"Ihe  IJible,  and  point  out  the  coincidences  between  the  instructions  of  the 
sacred  volume  and  the  sound  conclusions  of  reason. 

Willard's  Morals  for  the  Young      .    .    .    . 

Lessons  in  conversational  tyle  to  inculcate  the  elements  of  moral  phi- 
losophy.    The  study  is  made  attractive  by  narratives  and  engravings. 


CO 


*75 


GOVERNMENT. 


-•■^> 


Howe's  Young  Citizen's  Catechism  .... 

Explaining  the  duties  of  District,  Town,  City,  County,  State,  and 
Uiuted  states  Officers,  with  rules  for  parliamentary  and  commercial  busi- 
n«ss-that  which  every  future  "  sovereign"  ought  to  know,  and  so  few 


75 


are  taught 


Young's  Lessons  in  Civil  Government     .   .  1  25 

^   A  comprehensive  view  of  Government,  and  abstract  of  the  laws  show 
mg  the  rights,  duties,  and  responsibilities  of  citizens. 

Mansfield's  Political  Manual 1  25 

This  is  a  complete  view  of  the  theory  and  practice  of  the  General  and 
State  Governments  of  the  United  States,  designed  as  a  text-book.  The 
author  is  an  esteemed  and  able  professor  of  constitutional  law,  widely 
known  for  his  pagacious  utterances  in  matters  of  statecraft  through  the 
public  pres-s.  Recent  events  teach  with  emphasis  the  vital  necessity  that 
the  rising  ^'eneration  should  comprehend  the  noble  polity  of  the  Amer- 
ican government,  that  they  may  act  intelligently  when  endowed  with  a 
voice  in  it. 

39 


Tht  J\rational  Series  of  Standard  School-Tiooks, 


MODERN  LANGUAGE. 


French  and  English  Primer, I    i^ 

German  and  English  Primer, 10 

Spanish  and  English  Primer, 10 

The  names  of  common  objects  properly  iUustrated  and  arranged  in  aasy 
lessons. 

Ledru's  French  Fables, ^^ 

Ledru's  French  Grammar, '^^^ 

Ledru's  French  Reader, .    .    .   ^   .   .    .   •   •  1  00 

The  author's  long  experienco  has  enabled  him  to  present  the  most  thor- 
oughly practical  text-books  extant,  in  this  branch.    The  system  of  pro- 
nunciation  (by  phonetic  illustration)  is  original  with  this  author,  and  wUl 
commend  itself  to  all  American  teachers,  as  it  enables  their  pupUs  to  se- 
cure an  absolutely  correct  pronunciation  without  the  assistance  of  a  nativa 
master.   This  feature  is  peculiarly  valuable  also  to  "  self-taught"  student  \. 
The  directions  for  ascertaining  the  gender  of  French  nouns—also  a  great 
Btumbling-block— are  peculiar  to  this  work,  and  will  be  found  remarkably 
competent  to  the  end  proposed.    The  criticism  of  teachers  and  tha  test  ot 
tUe  school-room  is  invited  to  this  exceUent  Berie3,  with  coafideacj. 

Worman's  French  Echo, 1  25 

To  teach  conversational  French  by  actual  practice,  on  an  entirely  new 
plan,  which  recognizes  the  importance  of  the  student  learning  to  think  in 
the  language  which  he  speaks.  It  furnishes  an  extensive  vocabulary  of 
•words  and  expressions  in  common  use,  and  suffices  to  free  the  learner 
from  the  embarrassments  which  the  peculiarities  of  his  own  tongue  are 
likely  to  be  to  him,  and  to  make  him  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  use 
of  proper  idioms. 

Worman's  German  Echo, ^  ^^ 

On  the  same  plan.    See  Worman's  German  Series,  page  29, 

Pujol's  Complete  French  Class-Book,  ...  2  25 

Offers,  in  one  volume,  methodically  arranged,  a  complete  French  conrso 

usually  embraced  iu  series  of  from  five  to  twelve  books,  including  the 

Ijulky  and  expensive  Lexicon.  Here  are  Grammar,  Conversation,  and 
choice  Literature — selected  from  the  best  French  authors.  Each  branch 
is  thoroughly  handled  ;  and  the  student,  havi  ig  diligently  complected  the 
course  as  prescribad,  may  consider  himself,  without  further  application, 
aufait  in  the  most  polite  and  elegant  language  of  modern  times. 

Maurice-Poitevin's  Crammaire  Francaise,  •  1  00 

American. schools  are  at  last  supplied  with  an  American  edition  of  this 
famous  text-book.  Many  of  our  best  institutions  have  for  years  been  pro- 
curing it  from  abroad  rather  than  forego  the  advantages  it  offers.  The 
policy  of  putting  students  who  have  acquired  some  proficiency  from  the 
ordinary  text-books,  into  a  Grammar  written  in  the  vernacular,  can  not 
•  be  too  highly  commended.  It  affords  an  opportunity  for  finish  and  review 
at  once ;  while  embodying  abundant  practice  of  ita  own  rules. 

Willard's  Historia  de  los  Estados  Unidos,  •  2  00 

The  History  of  the  United  States,  translated  by  Professors  Tolon  and 
Pb  Tobnos,  will  be  found  a  valuable,  i:i£tructive,  and  «atcrt;iiaiaij  read- 
ing-book for  Spanish  classes.  . .-. 


The  J\^atlo7ial  Series  of  Slandard  School- ^Books. 


Pujol's  Complete  French  Class-Book. 

TESTIMONIALS. 
From  Prof.  Elias  Peissner,  Union  Cdlege. 
I  take  great  pleasure  in  recommending  Pujol  and  Van  Norman's  French  Class- 
Book,  as  there  is  no  French  ifraramar  or  class-book  which  can  be  compared  with 
It  in  completeness,  system,  clearness,  and  general  utihty. 

Frorn.  Edward  North,  President  cf  Hamilton  College. 
I  have  carefully  examined  Pujol  and  Van  Nonnan's  French  Class-Book,  and  am 
satijfiel  of  its  superiorij^y,  for  college  purposes,  over  any  other  heretofore  Uf-cd. 
We  shall  not  fail  to  use  it  with  our  next  clasa  in  French. 

From  A.  Curtis,  Prcs't  of  Cincinnati  Literary  and  Scientific  Institute. 
I  am  confident  that  it  may  be  made  an  instrument  in  conveying  to  the  studer.t, 
in  from  six  months  to  a  year,  the  art  of  speaking  and  writing  the  French  with 
almost  native  iluency  and  propriety. 

From  ITir.ATi  Orcutt,  A.  M.,  Prin.  Glenwood  and  Tilden  Ladies''  Seminaries. 

I  have  used  Pujol's  French  Grammar  in  my  two  remiraries,  exclusively,  for 
more  than  a  year,  and  have  no  hesitation  in  Faying  that  I  rejard  it  the  best  text- 
book in  thi3  department  extant.  And  my  opinion  ii  confirmed  by  the  testimony 
of  Prof.  F.  De  Launay  and  MadcmciLollo  Ilcrindin.  They  aesure  me  that  tl.e 
book  is  eminently  accurate  and  practical,  as  tested  in  the  tchool-room. 

From  Pro:'.  Tnro.  F.  D3  Fuhat,  Hetyrcw  Educational  Institute,  Memphis,  Tenn. 
M.  Pnjors  French  Grammar  ^^  one  of  the  bcrt  and  most  practical  works.  The 
French  language  i  5  chosen  and  elcjart  in  rtj-lc — modern  ai:d  caiy.  It  is  far  tu- 
perior  to  the  other  French  claes-bochs  in  this  country.  The  Felection  of  the  con- 
versational part  y  very  good,  and  v.  ill  interest  pupils  ;  and  being  all  completed  in 
only  one  volume,  it  is  especially  desirable  to  have  it  introduced  in  our  schools. 

From  Prof.  Jaiies  n.  Woruan,  Bordentown  Female  Cdlege,  N.  J. 

The  work  ij  upon  the  same  plan  as  the  text-boohs  for  the  study  of  French  and 
English  published  in  Berlin,  ibr  the  study  of  thot^o  v.ho  have  not  the  aid  of  a 
teacher,  and  these  books  are  considered,  by  the  flrct  authorities,  the  beet  books. 
In  most  of  our  institutions,  Americans  teach  the  modem  languages,  and  hereto- 
fore th3  trouolc  has  been  to  give  them  a  text-book  that  would  dispof^e  of  the 
difficulties  of  the  French  pronunciation.  This  difficulty  is  successfully  removed 
by  P.  and  Van  N.,  and  I  hnxo  every  rcaron  to  tciicve  it  w  ill  soon  make  its  way 
into  most  of  our  best  echoob. 

From  Prof.  CnAr.Li}3  S.  Dod,  Ann  Drnith  Academy,  Lexington,  Va. 

I  cannot  do  better  than  to  recommend  "  Pujol  end  Van  Norman."  For  compre- 
hensive  and  systematic  arrangement,  progressive  and  thorough  development  of 
all  grammatical  principles  and  idioms,  v/ith  a  due  admixture  of  theoretical  knowl- 
edge and  practical  exercise,  I  regard  it  as  superior  to  any  (other)  book  of  the  kind. 

Fivm  A.  A.  Fokcter,  Prin.  Pinehurst  School,  Toronto,  C.  W. 

I  have  great  satisfaction  in  bearing  testimony  to  M.  Pujol's  System  of  French 
Instniction,  as  given  in  hia  complete  class-book.  For  cicarress  and  comprehen- 
oivcness,  adanted  for  all  classes  of  pnpilc-,  I  have  found  it  superior  to  any  other 
work  of  the  kind,  and  have  nov/  used  it  for  6omc  years  in  my  establishment  with 
great  success. 

From  Prof.  Otto  F^ddef.,  Maplewood  Lictitut3,  Fittsfield,  Mass. 

The  conversational  excrciseiA  vv'ill  prove  an  immense  raving  of  the  hardest  kind 
ot  labor  to  teachers.  There  is  scarcely  any  thing  more  trying  in  the  way  of 
teaching  language,  than  to  rack  your  brain  for  short  and  easily  intelligible  bits 
of  conversation,  and  to  repeat  them  time  and  again  with  no  better  result  than 
extorting  at  long  intervals  a  doubting  '•  oui,"  or  a  hesitating  "  non,  monsieur  " 


The  JVatlonal  Series  of  Siatidard  School-Mooks. 


i 


ZW"  For  further  testimony  of  a  similnr  character,  sec  special  cjrenlar. 
curreiit  numbers  of  the  Educational  Bulletin. 

41 


and 


GERMAN. 

A  COMPLETE  COURSE  IN  THE  GERMAN. 

By  JAMES   H.  WORMAN,  A.  M. 

Worman's  Elementary  German  Grammar  -^i  so 
Worman's  Complete  German  Grammar     •  2  00 

These  volumes  are  designed  for  intermediate  and  advanced  classes  respectively. 
The  bitterness  with  which  they  have  been  attacked,  and  their  extraordinary  suc- 
cess in  the  face  of  an  unpriucipled  opposition,  are  facts  which  have  stamped  them 
ns  no';se«'sin"'  unparalleled  merit. 

Though  foltowing  the  same  general  method  with  "Otto"  (that  cf  '  Gaspey  > 
cur  author  differs  essentially  in  its  appUcation.  He  is  more  '^J^'''f''\^fllll^ 
tematic,  more  accurate,  and  besides  introduces  a  number  of  mvaluable  feature* 
which  have  never  before  teen  combined  in  a  German  grammar. 

Among  other  things,  it  may  be  claimed  for  Prof.  Worman  that  he  has  bceii 
tkf^^.0  introduce'!;  an  American  text-book  for  l-ming  Germar,  a  s  .^^^^ 
of  analogy  and  comparison  with  other  languages.  Our  best  teachers  are  also 
IhusiaSc  about  his'  methods  of  inculcating  the  art  of  speaking  of  und-^^^^^^^^^^ 
the  sDoken  lan<nja-e.  of  correct  pronunciation ;  the  sensible  and  con>  enient  origi 
narc'las^iLationo^f  n^^^^^^  (in  Lr  cleclensions),  and  of  irre^^^^^^^^^^^ 
serves  much  nraise  We  also  note  the  use  of  heavy  type  to  indicate  etymoiopca. 
ran?erm-^digms,  ,nd,  in  the  exercises,  the  parts  which  specially  lUustrata 
preceding  nilcs. 

Worman's  German  Reader •   •  ^\.^ 

The  flnct  co=>pitotlon  cf  clasrical  and  .tandanl  German  If**^'"^^;^;"^'^ 
to  American  students.    It  embraecs,  progressively  ar^ged,  selects  from 'te 

masterpieces  of  Goethe,  Sehiller,  Komer,  Se™'=.  ^If  »''.•  ^f  ■^*' ^^ 
Sehlegel,  Holty,  Lenau,  Wieland,  Herder,  Lesstag,  ^ant.  J;*'^;,^^''^"„^,'  ,„'^. 
kelmfnn  Unmboldt,  Eanke,  Ranmer,  Menzel  GerVmus  Ae    a»d^»°t^'»«  ^^. 
Plete  Goethe-s  "  Ipbigenie,"  Schiller's  "  Jangfran ;"  also,  for  mstruction  m  moa 
ern  conversational  German,  Benedix'8"E>gen8mn  „„„Mh„tiiiir  Notes 

There  are  besides,  Biographical  Sketches  of  each  »«'''';  ^'°"'"J"''^"/iuS 
explanatory  and  philological  (after  the  text),  G™""";"'"^   Kf^^^?"^  '"  °"  '**" 
tog  gnuamars,  as  well  as  the  editor's  own,  and  an  adequate  \  ocabulary. 

Worman's  German  Echo  ••••••  .;.  *^  jf 

Consists  of  exercises  in  colloquial  stylo  ^''"■■^ly  Ji  *V  r^f'^hl' «tTm1  - 
quate  vocabulary,  not  only  of  words  but  of  idioms.  Jhe  objec  "'  ^^^yf "  \l^ 
yeloped  in  this  work  (and  its  companion  volume  m  *e  French)  is  to  break  up  the 

laborious  and  tedious  habit  of  '«>«'««»»  «%''^?''v:V*t«.»(^«« 
most  effectual  bar  to  fluent  conversation,  and  to  lead  hiin  ^  Wen*  m  «^^^^^f 
in  ,„hi,-h  h'  'veaks     As  the  exercises  illustrate  scenes  m  actual  life,  a  con.iaera 
Netntledgrofthe  manners  a.d  customs  of  the  German  pcoplo  i.  aUo  acquxrod 
from  the  use  of  this  manual. 

42 


The     Vatioual  Series  of  Standard  Schoot-2^ooks. 


JVational  Series  of  Stajtdai'd  School- ^Books. 


Worman's  German  Grammars. 

TESTIMONIALS. 

From  Prof.  R.  W.  Jones,  Petemhurg  Female  College,  Ta. 

*.  F'*?™  7^*'  ^  ^*^6  ^en  of  the  work  it  is  almost  certain  /  shall  introduce  it  into 
this  institution.  ^ 

From  Pro/.  G.  Campbeli,^  TJniversit)/  of  Minnesota. 

Avalucble  addition  to  our  school-books,  a.id  will  find  many  friends,  and  do  -rcr  t 

From  Prof.  O.  II  P.  Corpkf.w,  J/ary  MiliturT/  Inst ,  3hl. 

I  am  better  pleased  with  them  than  any  I  have  ever  taught.    I  hare  already  ordered 
through  our  booksellers.  /  « 

From  Prof.  II.  3.  Kendall,  Vernon  Academy,  Conn. 

I  at  once  put  the  Elementary  Grammar  i.ito  tha  hunds  of  a  class  of  beginners,  and 
nave  used  it  tcitk  great  xatixfaction. 

From  Prof.  1).  E.  IIolmks,  LerV.u  Academy,  Wis. 
Worman's  German  works  are  superior.     I  shall  use  thorn  hereafter  in  my  German 

From  Prof  Magnl's  Buciiiioltz,  Hiram.  College,  Ohio. 

I  have  examined  the  Complete  Grammar,  and  find  it  excellent.    You  may  rely  that 
it  will  ba  used  here.  /       j        • 

From  Prin.  Tiros.  TV.  Tobev,  Paducah  Female  Seminary,  Ky. 
The  Complete  Germ  in  Grammar  is  worthy  of  an  exte.u;ivo  circulation.     It  is  ad- 
tmrably  adapted  to  the  class-room,     I  shall  use  it 

From  Prof.  Alkx.  Rosknspitz,  Ilonston  Academy,  Texas. 
Bearer  will  take  and  pay  for  3  dozen  copies.    Mr.  Wormj^n  deserves  the*  approbation 
and  esteem  of  the  teacher  and  the  thanks  of  the  student. 

From  Prof.  G.  Malmene,  Augusta  Scminctnj,  Maine. 
The  Complete  Grammar  cannot  fail   to  giv2  great  82lisfa,',tion  by  the  simpliuity 
of  Its  arrangement,  and  by  its  completeness. 

From  Prin.  Oval  Piukev,  Christian  University,  Mo. 
Just  stick  a  series  as  is  positively  necessary.     I  do  hope  the  author  will  succeed  as 
well  in  the  French,  &c.,  as  ho  has  in  the  Gei-man. 

Fronf  Prof.  S.  D.  IIillman,  Dickinson  Collje,  Pa. 
The  class  have  lately  commenced,  and  my  examination  thus  tV.r  warrants  me  in  say- 
ing that  I  regard  it  as  the  best  grammar  for  instruction  in  the  G.irman, 

From  Prin.  Silas  Liveumore,  Bloomfield  Seminary,  Mo. 
I  have  found  a  classically  and  scientifically  educated  Prus.sife,n  gentleman  whom  I 
propose  to  make  German  instructor.  I  haye  shown  him  both  your  German  grammars. 
Me  has  expressed  Jiis  approbation  of  them  generally. 

From  Prof  Z.  Test,  /lowland  School  for  Young  Ladies,  K.  Y. 
I  shall  introduce  the  books.     From  a  cursory  cxaminatio  i  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
pronouncmg  the  Complete  Grammar  a  decided  impri>vemeut  on  the  text-books  at 
present  ia  use  ia  this  country. 

From  Prof  Lewis  Kistler,  KortJacestern  Univtrfiity,  III. 
Having  looked  through  the  Complete  Grammar  with  some  car.i  I  must  say  that  you 
have  produced  a  good  hook:  yon  may  be  f-warded  with  this  gratification— that  your 
grammar  promotes  the  facility  of  learning  the  German  language,  and  of  becoming 
acquaintei  with  its  ric!i  literature. 

From  Pres.  J.  P.  Rous,  Stockwell  Collegiate  In^t.,  Ind. 
I  supplied  a  class  with  the  Elementary  Grammar,  and  it  gives  complete  saitsfae- 
Uon.     rhe  conversational  and  reading  exercises  arc  well  calculated  to  illustrate' the 
principles,  and  lead  the  student  on  an  easy  yet  thorough  courss.     I  thiuli  the  Com 
pl«t3  Grammar  equally  attractive. 

43 


THE   CLASSICS. 


LATI]Sr. 
Silber's  Latin  Course, $i  25 

The  book  contains  an  Epitome  of  Latin  Grammar,  followed  by  Rcadin'^  Exercises 
with  explanatory  Notes  and  copious  References  to  the  leading  Latin  Grammars    and 
also  to  the  Epitome  which  precedes  the  work.     Then  follow  a  I.Atin-English  Vocabu- 
lary and  Exercises  ia  Latin  Prose  Composition,  being  thus  complete  in  itself   and  a 
very  suitable  work  to  put  ia  the  hands  of  one  about  to  study  the  language.       ' 

Searing's  Virgil's  ^neid, 2  25 

It  contains  only  the  first  six  books  of  the  ^neid.  2.  A  very  carefully  constructed 
Dictionary.  3.  Sufficiently  copious  Notes.  4.  Grammatical  references  to  four  lead- 
ing Grammars.  5.  Numerous  Illustrations  of  the  highest  order,  6.  A  superb  Map 
of  the  Mediterranean  and  adjacent  countries.  7.  Dr.  S.  II.  Taylor's  "Questions  on 
the  ^neid."  8.  A  Metrical  Index,  and  an  Essay  on  the  Poetical  Style.  9.  A  photo- 
graphic  fac  simile  of  a  i  early  Latin  M.S.  10.  The  text  according  to  Jahn,  but  para- 
graphed according  to  Ladewig.     11.  Superior  mechanical  execution. 


Hanson's  Latin  Prose  Book, 3  oo 

Hanson's  Latin  Poetry, 3  oo 

Andrews  &  Stoddard's  Latin  Grammar,  *i  so 

Andrews'  Questions  on  the  Grammar,     .  *o  15 

Andrews'  Latin  Exercises, *i  25 

Andrews'  Viri  Romae, *i  25 

Andrews'  SaHust's  Jugurthine  War,  &c.  *i  so 

Andrews'  Eclogues  &  Georgics  of  Virgil,  *i  50 

Andrews'  Caesar's  Commentaries, ....  *i  50 

Andrews'  Ovid's  Metamorphoses,     .    .    .  *i  25 

G-REEK. 

Crosby's  Greek  Grammar, 2  oo 

Crosby's  Xenophon's  Anabasis, i  25 

MYTHOLOGY. 
Dwight's  Grecian  and  Roman  Mythology. 

School  edition,  $1  25;            University  edition,  *3  00 

A  knowledge  of  the  fables  of  antiquity,  thu8  presented  in  a  systematic  form,  is  as 
Indispensable  to  the  student  of  general  literature  as  to  him  who  would  peruse  intelli- 
pently  the  classical  authors.  The  mythological  allusions  so  frequent  ia  literature  are 
J»eadily  understood  with  such  a  Key  as  this. 

44 


T?ie  ^Vatlonal  Series  of  Standard  Sc/ioot-l^oolb 


SEARING'S  VIRGIL. 


SPECIMEN  FRAGMENTS  OF  LETTERS. 

'•I  adopt  it  gladly."— Prin.  V.  Dabney,  Loudoun.  School,  Va. 

"I  like  Searing's  Virgil."— Pbop.  Bristol,  Ripoii  College,  Wis. 

"Meets  my  desires  very  thoroughly. "-Prop.  Clark,  Berea  College,  Ohio. 

"Superior  to  any  other  edition  of  Virgil.' —Pres.  Hall,  Macon  College,  Mo. 

"Shall  adopt  it  at  once."— Prin.  B.  P.  Bakbr,  Searcy  Female  Institute,  Ark. 

"Your  Virgil  is  a  6^aw^y."— Prop.  W.  H.  De  Motte,  Illinois  Female  College. 

"After  use,  I  regard  it  the  best."— Prin.  (}.  H.  Barton,  Borne  Academy,  N.  T. 

"We  like  it  better  every  day."— Prin.  R.  K.  Buehrle.  Allentown  Academy,  Pa. 

"  I  am  delighted  with  your  Virgil."— Prin.  W.  T.  Leonard,  Pierce  Academy,  Maes. 

"Stands  well  the  test  of  class-room." -Prin.  F.  A.  Chase,  Lyons  Col.  Inst.,  loiva. 

"I  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  improved."— Prin.  N.  F.  D.  Browne,  Chart.  Hall,  Md. 

"The  most  complete  that  I  have  seen."— Prin.  A.  Brown,  Columbus  High  School, 
Ohio. 

'.'9"''  Professor  of  Language  very  highly  approves."-SuPT.  J.  G.  James,  Texas 
Mihfai-y  Institute. 

'•  It  responds  to  a  want  long  felt  by  teachers.  It  is  beautiful  and  complete."— 
Prop,  Brooks,  University  of  Minnesota. 

''The  ideal  edition.  We  want  a  few  more  classics  of  Ihc  same  sort."— Prin. C. F 
P.  Bancroft,  Lookout  Mountain  Institute,  Tenn. 

'•I  certainly  have  never  seen  an  edition  so  complete  with  important  requisites  for 
a  student,  nor  with  such  fine  text  and  general  mechanical  execution."— Pres.  J.  R. 
Park,  Lmversity  of  Deseret,  Utah. 

•'It  is  charming  both  in  its  design  and  execution.  And,  on  the  whole,  I  think  it 
.?  the  best  thing  of  the  kind  that  I  have  seen."- Prof.  J.  De  F.  Richards.  Pres. 
pro  tsrn.  of  Umve?'sity  of  Alabama. 

"In  beauty  of  execution,  in  judicious  notes,  and  in  an  adequate  vocabularv.  it 
merits  all  praise.    I  shall  recommend  its  introduction."— Pres.  J.  K.  Patterson 
Kentucky  Agricultural  and  Mechanical  College. 

•'  Containing  a  good  vocabulary  and  judicious  notes,  it  will  enable  the  industrious 
student  to  acquire  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  most  interesting  part  of  VirLnl'ii 
works."— Prop.  J.  T.  Dunklin,  Ea^t  Alabama  College. 

"It  wants  no  element  of  completeness.  It  is  by  far  the  best  classical  text-book 
with  which  I  am  acquainted.  The  notes  are  just  right.  They  help  the  studei.t 
when  he  most  needs  help."— Prin.  C.  A.  Bunker,  Caledonia  Grammar  School,  Vt. 

"I  have  examined  Searing's  Virgil  with  interest,  and  find  that  it  more  nearly 
meets  the  wants  of  students  than  that  of  any  other  edition  with  which  I  am  ac- 
quainted. I  am  able  to  introduce  it  to  some"  extent  at  once."— Prin.  J.  Easter, 
East  Genesee  Conference  Seminary. 

"  I  have  been  wishing  to  get  a  sight  of  it.  and  it  exceeds  my  expectations.  It  Ls 
a  beautiful  book  in  every  respect,  and  bears  evidence  of  careful  and  critical  study. 
The  engravings  add  instruction  as  well  as  interest  to  the  work.  I  shall  recommend 
it  to  my  classes."— Prin.  Chas.  H.  Chandler,  Glenwood  Ladies'  Seminary. 

"A.  S.  Barnes  &  Co.  have  published  an  edition  of  the  first  s-ix  books  of  Vireil's 
^neid,  which  is  superior  to  its  predecessors  in  several  respects.  The  publishers 
have  done  a  good  service  to  the  cause  of  classical  education,  and  the  book  deserves 
a  large  circulation."- Prof.  George  W.  Collord,  Brooklyn  Polytechnic ,  N.  Y. 

"My  attention  w-as  called  to  Searing's  Virgil  by  the  fact  of  its  containing  a  voca- 
bulary which  would  obviate  the  necessity  of  procuring  a  lexicon.  But  use  in  the 
class-room  has  impressed  me  most  favorably  with  the  accuracy  and  just  proportion 
of  its  notes,  and  the  general  excellence  of  its  grammatical  suggestions.  The  gen- 
eral character  of  the  book  in  its  paper,  its  typography,  and  its  engravings  is  highly 
commendable,  and  the  fac-simile  manuscript  is  a  valuable  feature.  I  take  great 
pleasure  in  commending  the  book  to  all  who  do  not  wish  a  complete  edition  of 
Virgil.  It  suits  our  short  school  courses  admirablv."— ]5.!enry  L.  Boltwood.  Master 
(^Princeton  High  School,  III. 

45 


"  A  WeU  of  EngUsh  Undefiled." 


LITERATURE  AND  BELLES  LETTRES. 
PROCESSOR  CLEVELAND'S  WORKS. 

A  WHOZi:  JLIBHAJtT  IN  TOVB  VOLUMJJS. 


COMPEim 


Of  ENGIISN 

W  I9th  CENT  Y 

OF  AMERICAN 

OF  CUSSUiAL 


One  Hundred  and  Twenty  Thousand  of  these  Volumes  have  been  sold, 

and  they  are  the  acknowledged  Standard  wherever 

this  refining  study  is  pursued. 


PROF.  JAMES  R.  BOYD'S  WORKS. 

Z3CBKACINe 

COMPOSITIOX,  T.OGIC,   LITERATURE,  RUETOItlC,  CRITICISM, 
BIOGRAPHY }-VOETBY,  AND  BROSJS, 


BOYD'S  COMPOSITION  AND  RHETORIC. 

Remarkable  for  the  space  and  attention  given  to  grammatical  principles,  to  afford  a 
pnbstantial  groundwork ;  al^o  for  the  admirable  treatment  of  synonyms,  figurative 
language,  and  the  sources  of  argument  and  iilnstratiCMi,  with  notable  exercises  for  pre- 
paring  the  way  to  poetic  composition. 

BOYD'S  ELEMENTS  OF  LOGIC. 

explains,  first,  the  conditions  and  processes  by  which  the  mind  receives  ideas,  and 
then  unfolds  the  art  of  reasoning,  with  clear  directions  for  the  establishment  and  con- 
flrmation  of  sound  judgment.  A  thoroughly  practical  treatise,  being  a  systematic  and 
philosophical  condensaticm  of  all  that  is  known  of  the  subject. 

BOYD'S  KAMES'  CRITICISM. 

This  standard  work,  as  is  well  known,  treats  of  the  fiicnlty  of  perception,  and  the 
result  of  its  exercise  upon  the  tastes  and  emotions.  It  may  therefore  be  termed  a  Com- 
pendium of  Aesthetics  and  Natural  Morals ;  and  its  use  in  refining  the  mind  and  heart 
has  made  it  a  standard  text-book. 

BOYD'S  ANNOTATED  ENGLISH  CLASSICS. 


Milton* 9  Paradise  lost. 
Young* s  Night  TlionghtM. 
Cowper^s  Task,  Table  Talh,  «frr. 


TJiontson*s  Seasons. 
Polloh*s  Course  of  Time. 
Lord  Bacon* s  Essays. 


In  six  cheap  volumes.  The  service  done  to  literature,  by  Prof.  Boyd's  Annotations 
upon  these  standard  writers,  can  with  difBculty  be  estimated.  Line  by  line  their  ex- 
pressions and  ideas  are  analyzed  and  discussed,  untU  the  best  comprehension  of  the 
powerful  use  of  language  is  obtained  by  the  learner. 


• 


gtU  p«tt,  all  pannerg,  aaa  all  %\x&t% 


KATIOSAL 
SERIES. 


IISTOEY. 


STANDARD 
TEXT-BOOKS, 


"History  is  (Philosophy  teaching  by  Examples.'' 


THE  UNITED  STATES. 


ROME 

and  d< 
charm 

rirNrRAI      WHIard's  Universal  History. 

U^  1 1  [■  n  H  Li  ■  and  illustrated  as  to  be  less  diffl 


2.  General  Summary  of  History.  Bemg  the  Summaries  of  American,  am 
of  English  and  French  History,  bound  in  one  volume.  The  leading  events  m 
the  histories  of  these  three  nations  epitomized  in  the  briefest  manner. 


A.   S.   BARNES  &  CO., 


I.  Youth's  History  of  the 

UNITED  STATES.  By  Jamiw 
HoNTBiTH,  author  of  the  National  Geographical  Series.  An  elementary  work 
^oVthe  (iatechetical  plan,  with  Maps,  Engravings,  Memoriter  Tables,  etc  For 
the  youngest  pupils. 

2     Wlllard's   School    History,  for  Grammar  Schools  and  Academic  classes 
Desicmed  to  cultivate  the  memory,  the  inteUect,  and  the  taste,  and  to  bow  the  . 
eeedr  of  virtue,  by  contemplation  of  the  actions  of  the  good  and  great.  \ 

o     Willard's    Unabridged    History,    for  higher  classes  pursuing  a  complete  J  ^ 
^        course    Notable  for  its  clear  arrangement  and  devices  addressed  to  the  eye,  wiUxV 

a  series  of  Progressive  Maps.  W 

A     Summary  of  American  History.    A  skeleton  of  events,  with  all  the  prom-       t 
^        Sact^  and  dates,  in  fifty-three  p/ges.    May  be  committed  to  -e-ory  .^-       \ 
Xatlm,  used  in  review  of  larger  volumes,  or  for  reference  simply.       A  mmiature         \ 
of  American  History."  ^ 

run  liUn     I.  Berard's  School  History  of  England,  combining 

tnuLAllU"  an  interesting  history  of  the  social  Ufe  of  the  English 

people,  with  that  of  the  civil  and  military  transactions  of  the  realm.  Religion, 
literature,  science,  art,  and  commerce  are  included. 

2    Summary  of  English  and  of  French  History     ff^j^NCE. 

A  series  of  brief  sStements,  presenting  more  pomts  of  ■  ■■""'^'■' 
attachment  for  the  pupil's  interest  and  memory  than  a  chronological  table.  A 
weU-proportional  outline  and  index  to  more  extended  readmg. 

Ricord's  History  of  Rome.    A  story-like  epitome  of  this  inter. 

esting  and  chivalrous  history,  profusely  illustrated,  with  the  legends 

and  doubtful  portions  so  introduced  as  not  to  deceive,  while  adding  extended 
charm  to  the  subject. 

A  vast  subject  so  arranged 

difllcult  to  acquire  or  retain.  Its 

whole  substance,  In  fact,'  is  summarized  on  one  page,  in  a  grand  "Temple  of 
Time,  or  Picture  of  Nations. 


\ 


' 


i^m 


■  ■■f  *-:,i 


'-  F3^*^^-^%^-* 


